Some skeptics in hearing on allowing foreign-born presidents

Sac Bee ^ | 10/05/04 | David Whitney

[NormsRevenge]

WASHINGTON - A Senate hearing on a proposed constitutional amendment to permit foreign-born citizens like Arnold Schwarzenegger to run for president demonstrated many things Tuesday, including that it's a bigger issue than the governor.

Some Democrats and Republicans backed the amendment. Others expressed deep skepticism. But bridging the gap between them was the suggestion that whatever is done, it probably should not apply to current politicians.

Only once was Schwarzenegger mentioned by name in the two-hour Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, and then by Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Huntington Beach, in a passing reference.

"The hearing would not be complete if the name of Arnold Schwarzenegger was not mentioned once," said Rohrabacher, who recently introduced a House bill to lift the constitutional ban on foreign-born presidents.

Later, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, California's senior Democratic senator, also referred to the governor but only to emphasize that no one had approached her about the need to change the constitution for him.

Feinstein joined Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, in declaring themselves skeptics on the issue. Feinstein said the consequence of the provision was that her foreign-born mother could not run for president, but that might not have been bad.

"I'm not sure it's damaging to go through that first generation," she said.

But Feinstein said she hasn't made up her mind on the constitutional amendment, which she said isn't going to move anytime soon anyway.

[Barlowmaker]

It's going down. Just another opportunity for Freepers to lose their mud.

There's some 20 year old in the 1ID - born in Honduras or Mexico - who could be very well winning a Silver Star or Congressional Medal of Honor in Samarrah tonight. What do YOU have on that kid?

[mabelkitty]

They better be skeptics.
This is BS.

[gedeon3]

I am a proud, naturalized American citizen and a conservative republican. I am totally against allowing a foreigner to qualify for the presidency of this country.

[KevinDavis]

Count me as one of those people who is against people like Arnold and other naturilized citizens to become President. Bad idea.

[Tweaker]

For Heaven's sake man.
Just because SOME of our forefathers were immigrants doesn't mean every citizen today is.
Of course if we use your logic there would be no need in this proposed amendment nor any further discussion of the matter because EVERYONE is an immigrant and as such all Presidents past, present and future are immigrants also.

[IamHD]

or something like "President Zarqawi?"

double *shudder*

[Barlowmaker]

Justify the logic of the 1787-era mindset prohibition in year 2004.

Any of the 26 Amendments of which you approve?

Thanks in advance.

[Barlowmaker]

You think a "nation" that would elect a Zarqawi character as President would consider a Constitutional prohibition any kind of roadblock? Would the Constitution, the office of President or voting even exist? Get real.

I better head to the Cheney debate thread before I get in trouble again tonight.

[Barlowmaker]

I am a proud, naturalized American citizen and a conservative republican. I am totally against allowing a foreigner to qualify for the presidency of this country.

Why?

[IamHD]

I was just using the name/word "Zarqawi" as an example. :)

[flashbunny]

I'd say the same thing I have over john kerry.

[Tweaker]

"Justify the logic of the 1787-era mindset prohibition in year 2004.

Any of the 26 Amendments of which you approve?

Thanks in advance."

I assume that your rapid subject change means you concede the point and you now wish to yap about something totally unrelated. Thanks, but I just washed my hands and I can't do a thing with them.

[Barlowmaker]

No, I don't concede your point.

It's called a multipart question. You can answer them one at a time.

[Tweaker]

Then how about finishing the conversation on no foreign born Presidents. What ever your argument is will not convince anyone to change their mind if you don't make your case.

[Barlowmaker]

You're original point was too obtuse to answer.

The rule exactly exists because our "Founding Fathers" were NOT immigrants. They were landed gentry. Mulitgenerational rich guy lawyers, bankers and bon vivants. They thought negroes weren't whole people and that women weren't trusted to vote. We tossed those unsavory perceptions.

The elites wanted one of "their own" in the CEO position. They okayed a foreign born nationalized citizen for the job, as long as he was naturalized by 1787 and had been there 14 years. They liked their little club. They wore wigs and had crappy teeth too.

We don't live that way anymore. If a man or woman born in Canada, here since age two and is currently a 50 year old briliantly successful American naturallized citizen, what SHOULD make him or her less qualified to lead this country in a wise, patriotic way than some dismal lifelong slob who was born here by some quirk of fate and has done NOTHING with the American blessing?

Your original point was nonsense. There's no way to answer it. In what way is the brilliant, historically talented naturalized American citizen less qualified than you (or me) who may be native born morons?

[itsahoot]

Since Hatch is for it, it can't be a good idea.

Amen!

[Dr. Marten]

Here we go again...

LEAVE THE CONSTITUTION ALONE!!!

It isn't broke...so don't try fixing it. I suggest that we keep track of all those who vote in favor of ammending the Constitution to allow foreign-born presidents and then stage major protests against re-electing them.

[Paleo Conservative]

Fortunately constitutional amendments are very hard to pass. Ultimately the state legislatures of 3/4ths of the states would have to approve. I seriously doubt it a handfull of state legislatures would ratify even if it got approved by 2/3rds of both the House and Senate. I really don't see senators voting to create more competition when they run for President. At least a quarter of the senators wake up every morning look into the mirror and think they see the face of the next President of the United States. It is not in their self-interest to allow foreigners to run for President.

[Tweaker]

Your original post stated;

"All the snotdrippin' idiots I know are native born."

This gave me cause to believe you or someone you favor is a foreign born candidate of your choosing and your first step in getting them elected is to denigrate the home growns, or your are a Libertarian or an anarchist.

"This is an archaic rule that has no merit in a nation of immigrants."

This convinced me of it. The Constitution of the United States of America is not a living document and should not be subject to whimsical, knee-jerk reactionary changes

My original post was neither obtuse nor nonsense,but it was rhetorical.

What is nonsense is this "nation of immigrants" pablum that is spewed by every liberal who has a particular tradition, law, or common sense rule that they wish to abolish or some degenerate behavior they want to promote and preform.

Certainly this country was populated by "immigrants" but it was certainly not founded by them. The vast majority of American citizens who founded and fought to establish this country were born here, as most of our population today are born here.

Immigrants who then came to America seeking the freedom and opportunity denied them by their native countries quickly assimilated themselves into our culture, our customs, our socially acceptable behavior and our laws. They did not come to establish their own mini islands of their native country nor would it have been allowed. This is precisely why no foreign born person would ever be allowed to obtain the Presidency. Else Hitler, Mussolini, Hussein or their like could easily waltz in here and bestow their special gifts upon us.

As for Negroes and women you would do well to remember that as property, Negroes had value. It was in their owners best interest to see to their needs and treat them well, they couldn't produce if they were broken down and ill fed.
Most women who are honest will admit that women as a sex are far more concerned with being safe than defending themselves. They would instantly give up their liberties for the promise of security. This is why women were denied voting privileges, so they wouldn't vote, in mass, to feel secure rather than actually be secure.
No, I don't advocate enslaving human beings nor repealing the 19th amendment.

Canadians, by virtue of the fact that Canada is a socialist country, incapable of defending itself against more than a pack of wild dogs, have absolutely no business running this country. They have no concept anymore of freedom, if they ever did.

Lastly, let me remind you that the elites do not elect governments in the U.S. We the people elect them, we the people fire them, ours is a government of the people, by the people and for the people. In 1787, being a scant 11 years from our declaring independence from British rule and not yet fully established as a country, it seemed prudent to disallow any foreign born man from ruling this country, especially when you consider that George Washington was offered Kingship for life. He had the good sense quash that.

No person with loyalties, real or imagined, should be allowed to be the CIC of the most powerful country the world has ever known. And neither should they be allowed to execute an executive order, such as Marshall law.

I'm not sure what your problem with rich white guys are but it come across as sour grapes.

"The rule exactly exists because our "Founding Fathers" were NOT immigrants. They were landed gentry. Mulitgenerational rich guy lawyers, bankers and bon vivants...The elites wanted one of "their own" in the CEO position. They okayed a foreign born nationalized citizen for the job, as long as he was naturalized by 1787 and had been there 14 years. They liked their little club. They wore wigs and had crappy teeth too."

I suppose the Crips and Bloods who wear skullcaps and pants that sag below their buttocks can't really be considered an official club...

[Barlowmaker]

This Contitution not being a "living document" stuff is idiocy.

Of course it is. There's a Constitutional Amendment Process.

There's a Legislature that can make new law. Law unforseen by the Nostradamus "Founding Fathers", who truth be told, basically hated and distrusted each other. So they threw every check and balance into the machine to protect their own interests.

The Constitutional is vitally alive. Your understanding is moribund. And you refuse to answer my questions about the prohibition on naturalized citizens, because you know it will reveal something deeper and ugly about yourself to the forum.

You folks here love doing that under cover.