Posted on 12/01/2004 9:08:13 PM PST by CHARLITE
In the aftermath of the 2000 presidential election, liberals raged at the ''injustice'' of the Electoral College. Consequently, they demanded the standard ''ix,'' echoed every four years, of amending the Constitution to select the president by popular vote.
But although conservatives breathed a sigh of relief in 2000, the delayed determination of Ohio’s vote this year, and its decisive role in President Bush’s reelection, predictably resulted in rumblings from the right that, indeed the Electoral College needs to be discarded. Once again however, the wisdom of the founders has been made evident, for those who are willing to recognize it.
In the past two presidential races, the primary focus, both before and after Election Day, was on individual states. In 2000, everything centered on the state of Florida, while in 2004 it was the state of Ohio. Though the Founders’ premise of federalism has largely been abandoned in modern times, statehood was a crucial component of that philosophy.
By definition, the emphasis on statehood de-emphasizes the supremacy of the federal leviathan. Conversely, erosion of states’ rights bolsters the notion of the helpless and lowly citizenry at the mercy of their impersonal and unaccountable federal master.
The framers of the Constitution never intended the chief executive to govern as a ''monarch of the masses,'' but rather as President of the United States. It is altogether evident that the Electoral College enhances this concept.
The American people ought to realize by now that major changes to the fabric of the country, particularly those implemented out of fear or in response to an immediate crisis, rarely work to the best interests of the country in the long run. Now it is Republicans who, fearing a Hillary candidacy in 2008, are pondering a fundamental change in the makeup of the nation from which it might never recover.
Since his meteoric rise to the governorship of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger has been toying with the notion of running for president, possibly as early as 2008. Unfortunately for him, a constitutional barrier stands in the way. Not having been born within the borders of this nation, or on an American military base overseas, he is presently ineligible for the presidency.
So, to nobody’s great surprise, Schwarzenegger is advocating the passage of a constitutional amendment to remove this roadblock. And equally predictable are those unprincipled Republican ''moderates'' who, rarely hesitating to jump on any passing ''bandwagon,'' believe this to be a good idea.
Though the adverse effects of such a constitutional alteration might not immediately become apparent during a Schwarzenegger presidency (Schwarzenegger’s liberal politics notwithstanding), the damage to American sovereignty would eventually be severe.
Consider how seemingly virtuous foreign statesmen such as Vicente Fox, president of Mexico, having no ingrained allegiance to the American homeland, eventually display their regard for it as just one of many nations throughout the world.
Completely unwilling to even use the term ''illegal alien'' when describing the hordes of unlawful invaders streaming into America, Fox instead asserts their ''right'' to be here, totally disregarding the hardship they pose to the rightful inhabitants of this nation. Fox’s chief interests are, not surprisingly, for his own people. Similar examples among other foreign leaders abound.
Some might attempt to deflect this argument by pointing out that such sentiment exists among naturalized citizens. Certainly this is true. The birthright clause of the Constitution was never intended to be the sole prerequisite, but only one of several qualifications.
Another frequently invoked argument is that some American citizens are far less devoted to the nation than is Schwarzenegger. John Walker Lindh, the ''American Taliban,'' is a prime example. Yet much the opposite can be gleaned from the Lindh situation.
Aside from Bin Laden and Mullah Omar, Lindh was undoubtedly the most famous enemy combatant of the Afghan war. As a natural born American turned Taliban, Lindh had abominated his heritage. And it was for this very reason that the country took note of him. Americans instinctively recognize the degree of perversity necessary for one of their own to turn so thoroughly from his roots.
It was the founders’ understanding of the nearly universal ties to one’s place of birth, which inspired them to include such a requirement in the nation’s founding document. Its removal would forever diminish America as a unique and sovereign nation.
Arnold Schwarzenegger can serve this country in numerous other ways. If he truly holds it in high regard, he will leave its Constitution intact.
About the Writer: Christopher Adamo is a freelance writer from southeastern Wyoming, where he has been involved in grassroots political activites for several years. He maintains a website at http://www.chrisadamo.com
Christopher receives e-mail at adamo.chronwatch@lycos.com
I think they might be wrong.
Don't sweat it... this'll never fly.
I think we should repeal the 22nd Amend. and make W Pres for life. If that doesn't rid the country of DUmmies, nothing will.
Interesting the man wants to run for President and yet we are still waiting for him to improve the State of California. Arnold you may have been a so so actor but trust me when I say you are a no no Governor.
This is absolute poppycock!
It has never been Conservatives who wanted to do away with the Electoral College.
("Poppycock" IS a quaint British way of saying "bullsh!t," isn't it?)
I have yet to see a single post on FreeRepublic agreeing that this should actually happen. Have any RINO and/or 'moderate' Republican politicians actually publicly supported this yet?
The people have always been more disinclined to change our Constitution than the Judiciary has been.
Even if a resolution was passed among the states it would probably take years for it to be either ratified or dismissed, and by then Arnold would be out of the picture.
I respect Arnold, but to change the Constitution for one man today and leave that door open for a foreigner in the future is dangerous as well as shortsighted.
I believe one has to be born an American. You can be born an American overseas. It doesn't have to be on a military base. If a child is born an American overseas and he lives here most of his life, he can be President.
If the amendment to change to Constitution were to pass, it would pass too late for Mr. Schwarzenegger.
Arnoooold needs to work on governing!
Don't fix what isn't broken.
I trust in the judgement of our framers. They had to have a good reason for only allowing natural born citizens to be president. Besides that, I am no fan of Schwartzenegger because he supports killing babies, doesn't he? I could be wrong, but I swear I read somewhere he is pro-abortion.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/10/29/80903.shtml
Friday, Oct. 29, 2004 8:05 a.m. EDT
Schwarzenegger Wants Change to Run for President
California's movie star governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, says he wants to be able to run for president and approves of moves to raise the constitutional ban on foreign-born U.S. citizens holding the highest office, AFP reports.
"Yes, absolutely," Schwarzenegger said when queried by CBS "60 Minutes" about changing the Constitution to allow foreign-born citizens to run for president.
"Why not? With my way of thinking, you always shoot for the top," Gov. Schwarzenegger said.
Indeed it won't. For every good foreign born leader, there's a George Soros clone or two who'd love to buy the WH. Remember he tried it this year and failed miserably.
It'd NEVER be ratified.
Maria Shriver: Schwarzenegger Won't Be President
She may be a Kennedy but considering her comments later in the article maybe she's the more conservative of the two.
What size blinders are you wearing? Talk of a tunnel vision!
For crying out loud how many Amendments have been attached
to the constitution? With your tunnel vision, we should have
not tampered with the constitution, and therefore none of the
amendments were a good idea?
I am just happy there are more thinking people in this country.
Absolutely the truth of the matter!
If he wants to be President; he can go back to Austria and 'be President'.
If Arnold is doing lousy job as gov, how come his job
approval ratings in CA are so high?
In any case atleast Arnold is electable as opposed to
some of the other republicans in CA such as McClintock
who can't get elected even as a state wide dog catcher.
Don't be a rightwing nut. Arnold has never supported anyone
killing babies. Unless you are talking about fetuses, which
are entirely dependent on mother's body. If you mean Arnold
wants the mother to have the freedom to decide on abortion,
and if in your mind that equates to killing babies, you might
want to schedule an appointment with a competent psychiatrist.
Or atleast dont buy a gun and shoot someone who is performing
abortions on people you don't even know.
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.