Posted on 11/16/2004 11:41:05 PM PST by nickcarraway
Democrats and liberal Republicans dismiss the constitutional amendment to protect marriage against judicial redefinition as hasty fiddling with the Constitution. But it turns out that they would like to fiddle with the Constitution this year themselves. Barney Frank and others in Congress are advancing a constitutional amendment that would permit foreign-born presidents. The constitutional prohibition tells immigrants "that they are somehow flawed," says Frank.
The left's mania for concocted rights and egalitarian leveling is unremitting. Democrats in California made news earlier this year by demanding that the franchise be extended to children at elementary schools. Can minors, criminals, the insane, foreigners vote and run for office? Sure, why not? Let's take egalitarian democracy all the way -- that's basically the attitude on the left, and it drives everything from abolishing the electoral college to provisional balloting to Frank's amendment. For the purposes of stalling the marriage amendment, Frank and his liberal friends faked up an interest in "federalism" earlier in the year -- arguing that the people's use of a constitutional amendment was somehow unconstitutional even though the Constitution gives them that amendment power -- but normally they have contempt for the republican concepts underlying the Constitution and seek to erase any distinction, no matter how rational, that interferes with their egalitarian vision. The United Nations hasn't enumerated a right to run for the U.S. presidency as a universal human right, but give it time.
Let's not change the Constitution for light and transient reasons, say the critics of the marriage amendment. But the "Arnold amendment" satisfies their search for constitutional gravity. Journalists who reject the marriage amendment as election-year hackery are listening respectfully to the creators of amendus.org, a website where you can learn about the need to amend the Constitution "for Arnold" Schwarzenegger as well as "join Arnold's team" and "get Arnold stuff."
Fortunately, Barney Frank's amendment and the others floating around aren't likely to go anywhere. As John Kerry learned, the egalitarian internationalist impulse -- of which these amendments are effects -- is political poison at this point: the American people didn't care for Kerry's vacation homes abroad; imagine if he had had a childhood one.
Moreover, the framers' reasons for prohibiting foreign-born presidents remain perfectly valid. Perhaps they are even stronger in post-9/11 America. Has the threat of "undue foreign influence," as they put it, passed? No, it has probably intensified in the American people's mind. Alexander Hamilton wrote of the "desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union?" It is clear that foreign powers, as illustrated by Clinton's White House coffees with Chinese spies and dubious Middle Eastern money sloshing through American politics, still seek an improper ascendant in our councils.
But the risk goes beyond the potential of foreign powers planting someone in the presidency or influencing a president born and raised abroad. Even a foreign-born president not subject to malign foreign influence is a risk not worth taking, given that unavoidably divided loyalties (due to an attachment to a country in which the president was born and raised, has fond memories of, family in, and so on) could make him either dangerous or ineffectual. Would an American president, born and raised in the Middle East, with extensive friends and family there, have bombed Kabul? Fought the war on terrorism aggressively in the Middle East? Invaded Iraq? Or would conflicted feelings have made him hesitant and dithering? Could he identify wholly with the American interest? The framers' concern about divided loyalties wasn't nativist caprice but a realistic recognition that a president needs to have an extremely deep attachment to America in order to serve it effectively in times of crisis.
Why are the eligibility requirements for the presidency devised more strictly than they are for other offices? Because it is much more important than other offices. The founders wanted to be certain that the most powerful official in government - the official with the fewest restraints on him in time of crisis -- had complete identification with the United States.
Disallowing foreign-born presidents was an obvious proposition to the delegates at the Constitutional Convention. The importance of the safeguard was so obvious to them it was barely even discussed, which is why it is difficult to find very much on what they actually said about it. Historians note that nobody voted against the prohibition, and nobody even felt the need to articulate much of a justification for it since it was such a clearly bad idea to everyone there. Historians do note the comment of Charles Pinckney, a constitutional delegate from South Carolina. He warned that what had happened in Poland fifteen years before the convention -- Poland was carved up after Austria, Prussia, and Russia planted a puppet in its election -- might happen in America: "we shall soon have the scenes of the Polish Diets and elections reenacted here, and in not many years the fate of Poland may be that of United America." And they also note John Jay's comment that it would be "wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in chief of the army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born citizen."
It is not hard to imagine the delegates of the Constitutional Convention endorsing the people's use of their amendment power to secure marriage from judicial despots. It is impossible to imagine them endorsing it to expose the presidency to foreign ones.
George Neumayr is executive editor of The American Spectator.
George Neumayr Ping
I'm a foreign born American. I can understand the reason for limiting our nation's two highest offices to native born Americans was and continues to be a valid one. Whatever one's personal desires are, they must take a backseat to the greater good of the country. Which is why the so-called "Arnold" Amendment is destined to go nowhere.
I'm also a foreign born American, and proud of it. But I think it's a bad idea to allow foreign born Americans to become the leaders of this great nation. Some have dual citizenship from their home countries and there would always be questions about their loyalties.
The restriction was put in there for a reason and we shouldn't change it.
Heck, we just held an election where a native born american tried to become president and many of us and questions about HIS loyalties -- with very good reason to do so! Imagine how tough it would be to do a thorough background check on someone who lived any part of his or her life overseas and then traipsed over here and got bit by the politics bug.
ONE KERRY IS ENOUGH! (sign the 180 Jenghis Fonda Kerry!)
My ex-wife came to this country from Mexico at the age of 14. She could not speak a word of english. Four years later she graduated as valedictorian of her class. She became a citizen soon after. She went to college on a volleybal scholarship and went to the US Olympic trials. She did not make the team but was offered a spot on Mexico's team. She turned them down because she felt SHE WAS AN AMERICAN now. She turned down an honor like that because of her love for her new country.
She enlisted in the Army, went to Jump School and served in Desert Storm as an MP escorting convoys and manning checkpoints. One of these checkpoints was attacked by mortars.
Since she learned english so late in life, she will always have an accent. She sounds like Salma Hyek and I found that sexy. She may be a bitch and our marriage ended badly but I will admit this about her; she is the proudest, most dedicated, most patriotic American I know. Her loyalties are clear. There is no reason why someone who loves America as much as she does should be denied an opportunity to run for President.
__________________
As far as the background checks and the contrast I made to Kerry -- what I had in this cobwebbed brain was, a foreign-born person who comes over here late in life to run for the highest office of the land -- where the majority of their lives was lived as a citizen of another country and perhaps they have made no major contributions to their new country (USA) like your ex did. (that's still not coming out exactly as I'm visualizing it in my head but it's the best I can do right now)
In the case of your ex, I can see the validation of her patriotism, and the fact that she came over here as a teen.
As far as the amendment -- I'm still mulling that over, reading, studying and open to input on it. There are pros and cons and at this stage I'm undecided.
Hope that clears it up a bit. Late at night and back pain meds kicking in so I wasn't that explicit (I should learn something from that LOL).
Life imitates art. If any of you haven't seen it I highly recommend the movie "Demolition Man" with Sly Stallone. In addition to being really funny, it paints a picture of the near future that we can see coming to pass before our eyes, including the Arnold for President thing.
While I have enjoyed some of his movies, one needs to separate the man from the image. In addition to the problem of being foreign-born, Arnold has the intellectual depth of a mud puddle. I doubt whether he has actually any idea what his positions on things like economics, education and abortion actually MEAN.
While he may be some kind of asset to the Republican Party in The People's Republic of California, his "style over substance" cannot carry its own weight.
If they thought it was a bad idea when our country was only 13 years old, and they were disqualifying people like Benjamin Franklin, and many other English-born people who had risked everything- life, liberty-- for America, then who are we to change it for Arnold.
Another note, I for one would not have supported Arnold for CA Gov if it were not for the fact that he wasn't eligible for President. I suspect that I am not alone.
The only "flawed one" is Barney Crank.......
Any Freeper would be nuts to support this Amendment, whether you're for or against Arnie as an individual. It's primarily leftists pushing this idea. They have no problem putting up with an Arnie for four or eight years, if it means that forever afterwards they'll be able to put a George Soros into the Presidency.
Qwinn
A bit of history forgotten:
The web of marriages in european royal families resulted in the kings and queens of various countries having little or no ties to the country they come to rule. Such was the case in 18th Century England. George I was imported from Hanover, Germany, as the closest Protestant relative to the throne. He divided his time between running Hanover and Britain and never learned to speak English. England has been run by Germans ever since, including the infamous George III.
One could argue that in an election, as opposed to hereditary monarchy, that one with such little tie to America would never reach the Presidency. But one has only to look how close John Kerry came. The founders wanted to take no chances.
The Framer's wrote an exception that was intended to permit Alexander Hamilton to run for president eventually. Section 1 of Article I provides: "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of the President;"
Hamilton was born on the British island of Nevis. He was Washington's closest aid and first secretary of the Treasury. He was Jefferson's most bitter rival because he was a manager, a pragmatist, a capitalist (with a bit of industrial policy), and a New Yorker--all of the can-do things that Jefferson lacked in his world of theory.
Two of the greatest developments for the United States in its early years were that (1) Jefferson was fortunately in France during the Constitutional Convention and thus had little or no impact on making the document wacky, and (2) the country never had the benefit of Hamilton's presidency because Aaron Burr killed him in a duel.
Democrats like to create false issues to distract voters from the real fraud that government itself since the New Deal has become. This is just one more in a long series.
I just have 4 words to say...
"Imagine President George Soros"
Mark
A new victim group has just been born by the left.
The "foreign born who never can be president of America" victim group.
The constitutional prohibition tells immigrants "that they are somehow flawed," says Franks
Franks says they are flawed? HUMMM.
I oppose allowing any Foreign Born person the office of the Presidency. There are Millions of Americans who could hold that office. It's unfortunate that MONEY now determines who will be President. The truth is that anyone, even a foreign born person, with Millions to spend could buy that office. Leave the Constitution alone!
THANK YOU for that comment! I agree. It is the crazy-looney left and we cannot allow them to get away with this.
Arnie is their smoke-screen for a very bad idea. The GOP has some very wonderful people to run they dont need arnie.
They screamed bloody-murder about the Marriage amendment, that it was terrible to touch the amendment for that, but yet its perfectly okay when it fits their liberal-progressive sicko schemes and scams!!
God these people have got to be stopped from their destroying our Country especially since we are the majority now. Thats all we need is a zillionaire like Soro taking over our country or some other looney horrid progrssive liberal, just look at the likes of the progressives on DU.
Their fav word starts with F.
Please just say NO to an amendment for foreign-born to be Pres.
I agree totally. I also think that there would be efforts to sneak provisions into an amendment that could be very troublesome down the line to the country.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.