<a href='http://www.amendforarnold.com' target='_blank'>http://www.amendforarnold.com</a>

Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the United States Constitution:

"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 President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

There has been a lot of chatter about amending the Constitution to allow foreign born citizens ro run for President. Commercials will begin being aired in California on Monday to support the change in the Constitition which was proposed by Utah senator Orrin Hatch. Whether or not you like the guy, this amendment should NOT be passed. There was a reason for this amendment to be in the Constitution, that was to protect this country from outside interests. No major nation on Earth allows foreign born citizens to run for the head office mainly for this reason. Despite the fact that outside interests have made their way into our political circles, this amendment would be a slap in the face.

Arnold has been meeting with some of the most powerful people in global politics for some time now and it seems as if they are grooming him for something more than just the governor of California. It wouldn't surprise me if people blindly accept this amendment since we all know him as the actor and is one of Hollywood's most popular stars. Whether you are Republican, Democrat, Liberal, Conservative or any other political label, you must admit that this is a wrong choice. Natural born citizens only for the position of Commander in Chief!

Im an Arnold fan, he's doing a pretty good job in Cali, but I don't think they should change the constitution for him though, unfortunately that is one office he should not be allowed to run for.

i really don't think this amendment will ever be passed. Arnold is to liberal. And the repubs and dems i think can agree on this.

America should be run by an American. Period.

T-Monay820 Wrote:America should be run by an American. Period.

yeap.

I agree with y'all

Well, I'll be damned! Something we can all agree on!

99Tiger Wrote:Well, I'll be damned! Something we can all agree on!

Mark the time and date.

Nov 16 2004, 12:38 AM

A Date that will live in infamy. :D

It's like I heard on the radio this morning: Would another country ever let an American be their leader?

moloch_322 Wrote:<a href='http://www.amendforarnold.com' target='_blank'>http://www.amendforarnold.com</a>

Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the United States Constitution:

"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 President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

There has been a lot of chatter about amending the Constitution to allow foreign born citizens ro run for President. Commercials will begin being aired in California on Monday to support the change in the Constitition which was proposed by Utah senator Orrin Hatch. Whether or not you like the guy, this amendment should NOT be passed. There was a reason for this amendment to be in the Constitution, that was to protect this country from outside interests. No major nation on Earth allows foreign born citizens to run for the head office mainly for this reason. Despite the fact that outside interests have made their way into our political circles, this amendment would be a slap in the face.

Arnold has been meeting with some of the most powerful people in global politics for some time now and it seems as if they are grooming him for something more than just the governor of California. It wouldn't surprise me if people blindly accept this amendment since we all know him as the actor and is one of Hollywood's most popular stars. Whether you are Republican, Democrat, Liberal, Conservative or any other political label, you must admit that this is a wrong choice. Natural born citizens only for the position of Commander in Chief!

[QUOTE]Arnold has been meeting with some of the most powerful people in global politics for some time now and it seems as if they are grooming him for something more than just the governor of California. [QUOTE]

Arnold is waaaayyyy liberal for the religeous right. Without them, nothing happens in the republican party.

rteynor Wrote:It's like I heard on the radio this morning: Would another country ever let an American be their leader?

Winston Churchill was an American citizen.

Who said Arnold isn't American?

AmeriKenny Wrote:Who said Arnold isn't American?

Austrian at birth, American by choice. He's an immigrant American, but our leaders need to be born here. There was a reason why this amendment was created. Originally it was to prevent those who were born in England, who could potentially become president, and hand the young nation back to the British crown. Maybe times have slightly changed, England isn't looking to have the Union Jack flying over Washington soon, but this amendment should be preserved. No nation that is a major player in global politics and economics allows foreign born citizens to rule the head office in their government. Furthermore it allows the altering of an important amendment in our Constitution. If they amend that, why not put frivolous amendments in there as well which do not need to be there? Why not remove our right to bear arms? Why not put some limitations on free speech? We have a Constitution, probably the best one ever written in world history, that was created to protect this country and give its citizens some of the most basic rights which most of us take for granted. I think keeping the amendment on the rules of presidency should be kept to preserve that document, and overall preserve this nation.

Quote:Austrian at birth, American by choice. He's an immigrant American, but our leaders need to be born here.

What if his parents were on vacation in the Bahamas, and his mom gave birth to him there? And then he was raised in American public schools and then ran for office? What REALLY makes him less American than someone born IN this country? Isn't it even possible that he would be a MUCH better President than the alternative?

Quote:There was a reason why this amendment was created. Originally it was to prevent those who were born in England, who could potentially become president, and hand the young nation back to the British crown. Maybe times have slightly changed, England isn't looking to have the Union Jack flying over Washington soon,

Exactly.

Quote:but this amendment should be preserved. No nation that is a major player in global politics and economics allows foreign born citizens to rule the head office in their government.

Like I said, what if he was born in another country, but raised in the states since he was 6 months old or something like that?

Quote:Furthermore it allows the altering of an important amendment in our Constitution. If they amend that, why not put frivolous amendments in there as well which do not need to be there? Why not remove our right to bear arms? Why not put some limitations on free speech?

Now you are talking about things that are totally unrelated.

Shouldn't the man that runs for office just have to be an AMERICAN? Isn't that what matters the most? Let's make up a hypothetical situation. Pretend Ronald Reagan was born in France. Who would you rather be the President? Reagan or Al Sharpton?

Quote:Arnold has been meeting with some of the most powerful people in global politics for some time now and it seems as if they are grooming him for something more than just the governor of California. It wouldn't surprise me if people blindly accept this amendment since we all know him as the actor and is one of Hollywood's most popular stars. Whether you are Republican, Democrat, Liberal, Conservative or any other political label, you must admit that this is a wrong choice. Natural born citizens only for the position of Commander in Chief!

That's what it comes down to. Who is going to win the most votes for being the Commander in Chief? THAT's what matters.....THAT and the fact that HE IS AN AMERICAN.

Quote:It's like I heard on the radio this morning:&nbsp; Would another country ever let an American be their leader?

No, but they might allow a person of that nationality run for office!

Quote:What if his parents were on vacation in the Bahamas, and his mom gave birth to him there?&nbsp; And then he was raised in American public schools and then ran for office?

That child was born to two American citizens who retained their citizenship. They didn't suddenly become Bahamians when they vacationed there. Besides, doesn't make much of a difference, but do you know who Arnold's father is? What hated political group he was a part of during the mid-20th century? The Nazi connection alone would stir up controversy.

Quote:

Quote:Furthermore it allows the altering of an important amendment in our Constitution. If they amend that, why not put frivolous amendments in there as well which do not need to be there? Why not remove our right to bear arms? Why not put some limitations on free speech?

Now you are talking about things that are totally unrelated.

Its COMPLETELY related, if they can change that, then what's going to prevent them from changing something else?

Quote:

Quote:It's like I heard on the radio this morning:&nbsp; Would another country ever let an American be their leader?

No, but they might allow a person of that nationality run for office!

Maybe some politically inept country like Peru, but would Russia? United Kingdom? Modern-day Germany? Japan? Nope. Not your major players.

What if a person was born in England and left for the USA when he was a year old, and and never left America the rest of his life? Is it not possible that he--after becoming a citizen, a student of American politics, an American combat veteran, and an American senator--could possibly make a better American President than someone else that was actually born here?

Isn't it the American leadership of our country that's as stake here? With the emphasis being on "American leadership," rather than place of birth?

AmeriKenny Wrote:What if a person was born in England and left for the USA when he was a year old, and and never left America the rest of his life?  Is it not possible that he--after becoming a citizen, a student of American politics, an American combat veteran, and an American senator--could possibly make a better American President than someone else that was actually born here?

Isn't it the American leadership of our country that's as stake here?  With the emphasis being on "American leadership," rather than place of birth?

A country of 290 million, many college graduates, and intellectuals, there's no shortage of eligible natural born citizens to run the country. None of our Presidents were born outside this country and this law was put in place by even those who were NOT born as American citizens. They realized the importance of creating and maintaining natural born hegemony for the White house.

To answer your question, it is possible that someone born outside of this country and lived here for many years can become a good president but, sorry he wasn't born here, he can't become President. It would be more of a test for him to prove his loyalty to our country if he didn't challenge our Constitution, the most powerful and revered document on Earth, and remain a faithful citizen abiding by and defending our law. Even if he was a Senator and couldn't run for President, he can still have weight in the political realm.

I am an American citizen. I am the adopted son of two American citizens. I have been a citizen for all my life but 2 days. I would never do anything that would go against American interests (like submit to the UN's global taxes, etc.). I am a foreigner. Yet I am against any amendment to change the rule that only Americans born in America can be president. That's how it should stay. It doesn't matter if a foreigner could "run" the country "better". It only matters that America would be run by people who were born and raised in America.

You guys are running on emotion, and not being practical.

Quote:To answer your question, it is possible that someone born outside of this country and lived here for many years can become a good president but, sorry he wasn't born here, he can't become President.

Way to contradict yourself there. You first say that it is possible, then you say he can't. Which is it?

What the heck is wrong if he was born in the Bahamas on vacation, then came back to the states for the rest of his life?

Think about a great American president. Any one. Your favorite one.

Now, pretend that records are found that show he was born in another country....say Canada.

So what's wrong now? He was our President, wasn't he? He was one of your favorite Presidents, wasn't he? He was a great American leader, wasn't he? Whoop-ti-doo he was born in Canada, he's 100% American, and that's what counts!

It's almost stupid to even consider where he was born. How can a person help where they were born afterall?

What if Barbara Bush Sr. was in Mexico and running towards the Texas border while she was having contractions, and gave birth to George W. Bush 5 feet away from the U.S. border? That same person that was born on the wrong side of the border still became the U.S. President, didn't he?

Now here's another situation. Say you all win, and the amendment isn't changed. What if a person is born here, grows up in Iranian public schools, then comes back here to go to college? I know it's far-fetched and the guy probably wouldn't get the Presidential nomination, but why does he have to be more eligible to run for President of the United States than a person that was born somewhere else and moved to the States immediately for the rest of his life?