Posted on 01/14/2007 1:40:19 PM PST by calcowgirl
THE GOVERNOR OF the nation's largest state was reelected in a landslide in November, even though his Republican Party is a minority in California. He works with Democrats in a way that offers the rest of the country a model of much-needed bipartisanship. To kick off his second term, he has proposed the most ambitious healthcare and environmental reforms in the country, and he is also committed to a massive reconstruction of the state's infrastructure.
Yet, oddly enough, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is not on the list of potential presidential candidates in 2008.
Why? Because the founders were worried in the 18th century that our fledgling nation might go the way of Poland and be overtaken by a foreign monarchy. Hence the constitutional qualifier that only "natural-born citizens" are eligible for the presidency of the United States.
In their wisdom, however, the Constitution's authors adopted a mechanism for the nation's founding document to be amended. Amendments should be undertaken sparingly, we agree, but it's a good thing that slavery was done away with and that suffrage has been expanded.
And now that we can all rest assured that no foreign monarch is going to move into the White House, it's long past due for this nation of immigrants to amend the Constitution to allow naturalized Americans to aspire to the presidency. This is precisely the type of defining issue — what it means to be American — that the amendment process was designed to address.
Supporting Schwarzenegger for governor (we did) does not necessarily lead to supporting him for president (we don't — yet). But why should Californians have their governor sidelined from the race? And why can't voters across the country be entrusted to decide for themselves whether the governor is sufficiently "American" to earn their vote? It's insulting, really.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-edw-arnold14jan14,0,2405373.htmlstory?coll=la-opinion-center
Roll call on the Arnold amendment
The editorial page asked each U.S. senator and representatives from California his or her thoughts on amending the Constitution to allow naturalized citizens to seek the presidency. Here's what they said.
Question: Would you support a constitutional amendment to allow naturalized citziens to seek the presidency?
Yes: 15. No: 9
Question: As a Californian, do you think it's fair that our governor can't run for president because he's a naturalized citizen?
Yes: 9. No: 15
[See link above for list of names and comments]
The Senators and Representatives from California that don't like our Constitution can always move to another country.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
If this passes, what we'll get is President Hernandez (PRI-Oaxaca).
One word -- Constitution! Guess the LA Times has no clue!
"He works with Democrats in a way that offers the rest of the country a model of much-needed bipartisanship."
He is a RINO anyway so what else is new.
I really want this law to be continued. This is the one right that natural born Americans actually have and one that I personally want to keep. If we keep giving away our birth rights, we will not have any left. This actually is about the only one left. Let's keep it.
Yeah, really. How long would the media or the 'Rats tolerate an elected Democrat acting as Ah-nold does towards the opposite party ? Take a look at what happened in my state of TN this past week when a courageous Democrat crossed the aisle to elect the first GOP Lieutenant Governor in 138 years (not a typo), the 'Rats wanted to lynch her on sight.
The Times recommends, for a change, amending the Constitution instead of having it "interpreted" by friendly judges.
Such uncharacteristic behavior should be encouraged.
The procedural hurdles put in place for an amendment are such that one can only pass if an overwhelming majority support it. I'm not worried.
For that matter, I see no real reason why immigrants of perhaps 20 years citizenship should not be eligible to be President. Not a real important issue for me, but not a problem either.
Guess you didn't read the article.
It is about a Constitutional Amendment, and there are quite a few CongressCritters, from both sides of the aisle, totally in favor of it.
Changing the constitution for one man, no matter who that man is, is pure foolishness.
.
NEVER FORGET
A Freedom-loving Gov. ARNOLD's excellent adventure in Little Saigon CA:
http://gov.ca.gov/index.php?/photos/3165/
(Photo Essay)
NEVER FORGET
.
I suspect that they're really more interested in Jenny Granholm than in Arnold. They're using him as RINO bait.
Granholm on the other hand is a woman, she's a democrat and all the times we republicans have forced her hand can be used as evidence of her bipartisanship.
Arnold doesn't seem very "red"--in the term's 21st century connotation (e. g. "red state").
Arnold can always get elected in Austria if he wants.
Naturalized citizens shouldn't be able to be President.Nothing will ever change my attitude on that issue.
"And now that we can all rest assured that no foreign monarch is going to move into the White House,"
Can we?
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.