Arnie May Run For Oval Office In 08

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2004-09-16 08:22pm

I heard on 106.1, the local classic rock station today that Arnie may run for President in 2008. Apperently there is an ammendment to the consitution before Congress right now that would allow forgein born Americans to run for the position. Any thoughts? Personally I don't think that he could be any worse than Bush.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-09-16 08:23pm

HA

Thanks for making my day

Talon Karrde · Post by **Talon Karrde** » 2004-09-16 08:24pm

The Constitution will not be ammended to allow a foreign-born citizen to run for POTUS.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2004-09-16 08:25pm

Here's a related article from CBC:

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/ ... 40916.html

WASHINGTON - A United States politician has introduced a constitutional amendment in Congress that would allow foreign-born citizens to run for president.

The proposal introduced in the House of Representatives by Republican congressman Dana Rohrabacher of California is seen as an effort to help his friend, state governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who was born in Austria.

Arnold Schwarzenegger
Rohrabacher acknowledged that criticism in a media release on Wednesday, but rejected the charge that the amendment was only intended to help Schwarzenegger, the former bodybuilder and action movie star.

He suggested that the person he really wanted to help was Tom Lantos, a Democratic congressman from California who was born in Hungary.

"This is no ploy," said Rohrabacher. "I honestly believe that Tom Lantos should be able to seek the highest office in the land, just like any other elected official."

The amendment would allow people who have been U.S. citizens for more than 20 years to run for president. Schwarzenegger became a citizen in 1983.

Rohrabacher said the founding fathers adopted the provision barring foreign-born individuals from the top U.S. job to prevent foreigners from meddling in American democracy.

But once an immigrant demonstrates commitment to America and wins public support as a leader, "then there is no good reason to bar him from seeking the highest office in the land," he said.

Similar motions have been introduced before, by both Democrats and Republicans.

But a change to the U.S. Constitution requires support of two-thirds of both the House of Representatives and the Senate, and the backing of 38 state legislatures.

Schwarzenegger is focused on governing California at the moment, a spokesperson told Knight-Ridder Newspapers when asked to comment on Rohrabacher's proposal.

There has been speculation that he would be an attractive Republican candidate in the 2008 election.

A recent poll done by Princeton Survey Research Associates International for Newsweek said Republicans chose Schwarzenegger as the most attractive candidate for the 2008 election, providing the U.S. Constitution was changed.

[/url]

Talon Karrde · Post by **Talon Karrde** » 2004-09-16 08:27pm

It will not pass.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2004-09-16 08:28pm

Talon Karrde wrote:The Constitution will not be ammended to allow a foreign-born citizen to run for POTUS.

What exactly are you basing that statement on? If that is your personal opinion than OK, however if you have some real info than please share it.

Talon Karrde · Post by **Talon Karrde** » 2004-09-16 08:28pm

Cpl Kendall wrote:
Talon Karrde wrote:The Constitution will not be ammended to allow a foreign-born citizen to run for POTUS.
What exactly are you basing that statement on? If that is your personal opinion than OK, however if you have some real info than please share it.

Do you honestly think it will have the support of 2/3 of congress and 2/3 of the state legislatures? Good luck.

Talon Karrde · Post by **Talon Karrde** » 2004-09-16 08:29pm

My bad... 38 of the state legislatures.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2004-09-16 08:30pm

Talon Karrde wrote:It will not pass.

Once again what are you basing this on? I have yet to see any numbers on Senators that back/oppose this.

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2004-09-16 08:31pm

Talon Karrde wrote:It will not pass.

why not? I guaran-fucking-tee that the minority lobbies will come out of the woodwork and put ungodly ammounts of pressure upon the Democratic party to support it. The GOP will be tripping over themselves to set up a damn near lock election victory in '08 with Arnie. And besides, it's the right thing to do. Give me one good reason why an educated and qualified person who has been a citizen here for 20 or 25 years shouldn't be allowed to run for President?

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2004-09-16 08:32pm

Talon Karrde wrote:Do you honestly think it will have the support of 2/3 of congress and 2/3 of the state legislatures? Good luck.

I have no idea, I don't really follow American politics that closely, but as I have stated above I haven't seen any numbers for opposition or backing. I can think of no good reason why the US Legislature would oppose it however.

Ma Deuce · Post by **Ma Deuce** » 2004-09-16 08:33pm

Cpl Kendall wrote:What exactly are you basing that statement on? If that is your personal opinion than OK, however if you have some real info than please share it.

The "natural-born clause" is part of the Constitution, (not even part of the Bill of Rights or an amendment), and IIRC, no part of the original Constitution has ever been repealed. I agree the natural-born clause should be removed, but realisticly I don't see it Congress voting to do so any time soon.

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2004-09-16 08:34pm

Cpl Kendall wrote:
Talon Karrde wrote:Do you honestly think it will have the support of 2/3 of congress and 2/3 of the state legislatures? Good luck.
I have no idea, I don't really follow American politics that closely, but as I have stated above I haven't seen any numbers for opposition or backing. I can think of no good reason why the US Legislature would oppose it however.

The one problem i see is timing. There isn't much chance of it being passed in time for the '08 election. Unless they slam it through congress now and get all the states to put the ammendment on the ballot for the '10 mid-term election.

Talon Karrde · Post by **Talon Karrde** » 2004-09-16 08:35pm

I don't have any "poll numbers" or statistical basis to back it up. Looking at it logically however, it is HIGHLY doubtful.

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2004-09-16 08:35pm

edit: that should read '06 mid-term election

Mayabird · Post by **Mayabird** » 2004-09-16 08:38pm

Ma Deuce wrote: The "natural-born clause" is part of the Constitution, (not even part of the Bill of Rights or an amendment), and IIRC, no part of the original Constitution has ever been repealed.

A nitpick, but that isn't completely true.

Section 3 Clause 1 of the US Constitution: The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, (See Note 3) for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.

The Seventeenth Amendment changed that so that instead of a vote by the state legislators Senators are elected directly by the people of the state.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2004-09-16 08:39pm

Talon Karrde wrote:I don't have any "poll numbers" or statistical basis to back it up. Looking at it logically however, it is HIGHLY doubtful.

I see, and what is the logical train of thought that you are using to arrive at this? From my point of view there is no "logical" reason to deny this ammendment. The original provision was there to deny forgein intervention in US politics, but the way the ammendment propostion is worded that is more or less eliminated. In Arnie's case, he's been there for 20 years and is the Govenor of California. He's proved his loyalty.

Talon Karrde · Post by **Talon Karrde** » 2004-09-16 08:51pm

Cpl Kendall wrote:
Talon Karrde wrote:I don't have any "poll numbers" or statistical basis to back it up. Looking at it logically however, it is HIGHLY doubtful.
I see, and what is the logical train of thought that you are using to arrive at this? From my point of view there is no "logical" reason to deny this ammendment. The original provision was there to deny forgein intervention in US politics, but the way the ammendment propostion is worded that is more or less eliminated. In Arnie's case, he's been there for 20 years and is the Govenor of California. He's proved his loyalty.

Now you're attempting to change the argument saying that I have said that it shouldn't be changed. I said it's not logical because how many times has the Constitution been ammended, especially in the last 25 years?

I never brought up any opinion on if he should or shouldn't be allowed to, I've been stating that I don't believe the ammendment would ever pass.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2004-09-16 08:57pm

Talon Karrde wrote:
Now you're attempting to change the argument saying that I have said that it shouldn't be changed. I said it's not logical because how many times has the Constitution been ammended, especially in the last 25 years?

I never brought up any opinion on if he should or shouldn't be allowed to, I've been stating that I don't believe the ammendment would ever pass.

The Constitution has been amended plenty of times, in excess of 20 if I remember correctly. OK, if you haven't been expressing personal opinion than what do you call your belief?

tharkûn · Post by **tharkûn** » 2004-09-16 09:02pm

Changing the constitution normally takes extremely long amounts of time even with significant popular appeal for the amendment to come down. The XIIth took over 4 years after Burr tried to steal the election, likewise the 22nd (a reaction to Roosevelt's extended tenure in office) wasn't ratified until 1951.

Eventually the constitution will be changed, but Americans treat the constitution about two steps less reverentially than Muslims and the Koran; changing it - no matter how trivial the change - must overcome an enormous amount of inertia. First you can forget about anything serious happening before the election, then t will take months if not years to get the langauge hammered out to a degree that satisfy's the lawyers and politicians. Then you actually have to walk it through most of the state legislatures which takes another year or so if you are lucky and there is no serious debate (the most trivial changes that enjoyed wide support took at least a year to run the state legislature gauntlet).

It is doubtful that any such change will occur before the campaigning begins in earnest, which if trends continue will be about right after the 2006 election

Talon Karrde · Post by **Talon Karrde** » 2004-09-16 09:02pm

Cpl Kendall wrote:
Talon Karrde wrote:
Now you're attempting to change the argument saying that I have said that it shouldn't be changed. I said it's not logical because how many times has the Constitution been ammended, especially in the last 25 years?

I never brought up any opinion on if he should or shouldn't be allowed to, I've been stating that I don't believe the ammendment would ever pass.
The Constitution has been amended plenty of times, in excess of 20 if I remember correctly. OK, if you haven't been expressing personal opinion than what do you call your belief?

Damn, am I not speaking English to you? I said I DID NOT express an opinion on whether Arnie should be allowed to run or not, but in your previous post you stated, "From my point of view there is no "logical" reason to deny this ammendment." THIS WASN'T MY POINT. My point that thinking logically, according to trend, it will not pass. Comprende?

StarshipTitanic · Post by **StarshipTitanic** » 2004-09-16 09:03pm

Talon Karrde wrote:Now you're attempting to change the argument saying that I have said that it shouldn't be changed. I said it's not logical because how many times has the Constitution been ammended, especially in the last 25 years?

I never brought up any opinion on if he should or shouldn't be allowed to, I've been stating that I don't believe the ammendment would ever pass.

Twice, in 1971 and 1992. How many ammendments? Twenty-seven, one every eight years on average since 1788. You ask such questions like it's some arcane knowledge no one knows.

What would you think of an ammendment backing, say, the prohibition of alcohol. Sounds crazy, no?

Talon Karrde · Post by **Talon Karrde** » 2004-09-16 09:04pm

StarshipTitanic wrote:
Talon Karrde wrote:Now you're attempting to change the argument saying that I have said that it shouldn't be changed. I said it's not logical because how many times has the Constitution been ammended, especially in the last 25 years?

I never brought up any opinion on if he should or shouldn't be allowed to, I've been stating that I don't believe the ammendment would ever pass.
You ask such questions like it's some arcane knowledge no one knows.

Wrong, I ask it pointing out it is rarely done.

StarshipTitanic · Post by **StarshipTitanic** » 2004-09-16 09:08pm

Talon Karrde wrote:
StarshipTitanic wrote:
Talon Karrde wrote:Now you're attempting to change the argument saying that I have said that it shouldn't be changed. I said it's not logical because how many times has the Constitution been ammended, especially in the last 25 years?

I never brought up any opinion on if he should or shouldn't be allowed to, I've been stating that I don't believe the ammendment would ever pass.
You ask such questions like it's some arcane knowledge no one knows.
Wrong, I ask it pointing out it is rarely done.

Last century, eleven ammendments were passed.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2004-09-16 09:11pm

Talon Karrde wrote:Damn, am I not speaking English to you? I said I DID NOT express an opinion on whether Arnie should be allowed to run or not, but in your previous post you stated, "From my point of view there is no "logical" reason to deny this ammendment." THIS WASN'T MY POINT. My point that thinking logically, according to trend, it will not pass. Comprende?

And I am asking you what "logic" you used to arrive at that conclusion. From where I sit it looks like personal opinion regardless of what you call it. Perhaps you should take a gander at your title.