Changing the constitutionPosted by Pauline on 10/10/03 at 10:53 (133401)
Hopefully I have the correct board for this post.
Since the election of Gov. Arnold S. two senators are going to propose
legislation to change the U.S. constitution to allow naturalized citizens to become president of the U.S.
I'd like to hear comments from anyone that's interested. Would you be for or against such a change and why?
Re: Changing the constitutionSharon W on 10/10/03 at 11:00 (133406)
VERY interesting question, Pauline... one I will have to think about for a bit.
Certainly, NOT because I want Arnold to be president.
But I heard that Colin Powell is actually Jamaican... which is to say, while he grew up in the US, that's where he was born.
Definitely an interesting point to ponder.
Re: Changing the constitutionPauline on 10/10/03 at 11:05 (133407)
Considering the fact that the U.S. is becomming a larger melting pot yearly with more and more immigrants taking that oath this question may become a reality sooner than later.
Certainly something to think about rather than make a quick decision on an election day.
Re: Changing the constitutionPauline on 10/10/03 at 11:08 (133408)
I think you heard wrong about Powell.
Quote: Colin Powell
I was born in Harlem, raised in the South Bronx, went to public school, got out of public college, went into the Army, and then I just stuck with it.
Re: Changing the constitutionSharon W on 10/10/03 at 11:11 (133409)
And I don't think that being born in the US insures loyalty to this country, anyway -- something that BG was fond of complaining about.
Re: Changing the constitutionSharon W on 10/10/03 at 11:12 (133410)
A-ha! I will have to tell her she was wrong!
Where'd you find that, so I can quote it back at her?
Re: Changing the constitutionPauline on 10/10/03 at 11:22 (133412)
His parents were Jamacian immigrants.
Re: Changing the constitutionEd Davis, DPM on 10/10/03 at 11:24 (133414)
It is interesting to see this brought up after Arnold S. 's win in CA.
Something to ponder. My gut leans toward not changing the Constitution but my brain leans the other way. Naturalized citizens can be among the most appreciative and loyal Americans as they have a strong appreciation of the differences between America and their place of origin.
Re: Changing the constitutionSharon W on 10/10/03 at 11:29 (133418)
My friend is blind these days, but her boyfriend can read this to her, and she's a big fan of Colin Powell so she'll LOVE the part where he IS eligible to become president under the current rules after all.
This will make her day.
Re: Changing the constitutionPauline on 10/10/03 at 11:38 (133423)
Personally I think the idea has been on peoples minds for quite a while, but Arnold's election gave the idea headlines.
Not a bad idea considering how our population is changing at such a rapid rate.
How the ammendment would be structured would be interesting. Do they give immediate privlidge to be come President, or make immigrants wait a number of years and if so how many really makes you more American? Right
now I believe the waiting period is 7 years.
Would a 25 year period of waiting make one any more American than 7 if that person is to become President of the U.S.?
Re: Changing the constitutionRick R on 10/10/03 at 12:55 (133436)
I find this whole California thing to be absurd. I don't have a clue what Arnold (no disrespect, I can't spell) stands for, I may well be wrong, but it appears that the deciding factor was name recognition derived from his movie career. Wow, now that makes him qualified. He may very well be, that's not my point. It's hard to believe neither party had anything that could beat that. I would have voted for Gary Coleman myself. Now, because for the moment we are enamored by him as a candidate, it's time to re-think the constitution? Too bad Arnold Ziffle didn't run.
Re: Changing the constitutionSharon W on 10/10/03 at 13:10 (133438)
That was my first impression, too. And it may well be the thing that swung the election for Arnie -- just as (I believe) it was for Ronald Reagan, when HE won as governor of California.
'New blood' isn't always a bad thing. I get REALLY tired of the same old, same old... ESPECIALLY when it comes to politics. Career politicians definitely get stuck in their ways!! And Schwartzenegger is rich enough, on his own, that he might just be hard to buy off.
And Arnie's WIFE is definitely 'OLD BLOOD'... SHE certainly has a proper 'political pedigree' if you are looking for one!
I say, wait and see. (But of course, I am not in California...)
Re: Changing the constitutionjohn h on 10/10/03 at 13:42 (133444)
Arnold's new staff names are starting to come out and some are very supprising. Willie Brown very much a Liberal and the Mayor of San Francisco. George Schultz a life time and political savy guy. His wife is going back full time to TV news reporting as she has been a reporter for 17 years. She will not report on California politics. He and his wife have done a good job of shielding their children from the media. I do not think I have ever seen them once. He was talking about his daily routine on TV the other day. He gets up at 6am and does one hour of his body building stuff. Has breakfast with his family. Plays with his kids for about an hour.Reads several papers. He has been married 17 years. Has enormous business holdings in several states. Will place all his holdings in a blind trust
other sort of interesting info: California is now 1/3 Hispanic. The Hispanics vote 3-1 in favor of the Democrats. In the recent election the Hispanics voted 50/50 to recall Davis. Willie Brown 'Davis is a bad Governor'! ouch!
Re: Changing the constitutionjohn h on 10/10/03 at 13:51 (133446)
Most people do not realize there have been a number of attempted recalls for the Governor of California. This is just the first one that succeded. They tried to recall Regan I think twice but failed. I think their recall law dates back to the early part of the century.
Most of the talking heads think any attempt to change state recall laws based on the Constitution would fail. I believe that one of the Bill of Rights notes that anything not specifically designated in the Constitution as a Federal power is automatically a province of the states. No where in the Constitution does it mention anthing I can remember about recalling elected officials thereby making such matters state matters. Of course our Supreme Court sometimes really goes far afield in reading things into the Constitution..
Re: Changing the constitutionjohn h on 10/10/03 at 14:13 (133450)
Rick: name recogniton is everything in an election. Ike, Regan, Grant, etc. In the most recent poll on name recognition I was supprised to see that Clark only had about a 5% name recognition. If you do not get it then there is no way you can get elected. I am blinded here in Arkansas as he is from Little Rock and we all have known him forever so we forget in the rest of the country he is probably better known as a talking head during the Iraq War. He really did not get that much recognition as NATO Commander.
Do you think we are better served by a career politican as President? In recent years most of our Presidents have been Governors. I think a man or woman who has the wisdom to surround themselves with good and experienced people, can communicate his/her message to the people and Congress, has a wide range of experience in many fields such as business, politics but not really a requirement in my mind, and most importantly seeks the position to help his country and not because of a thirst for power to be some of the qualities I look for in a President. I think to many of our politicans are on a power trip. Bill Clinton was driven to be a politican since he was a teenager. He even said when he was at the Governor's school for teens many years ago he was going to be President. Why do we see so many sons of politicans become politicans. Name recognition sure helps.Al Gore a good example. Here in Arkansas former Senator Pryor's son recently elected to the Senate. Pure name recognition. George Bush's son. Anyone named Roosevelt. Anyone named Kennedy. I think if you have the name recogniton an idiot might get elected. Do you think Hillary Clinton would have ever been elected to the Senate from New York without her name recognition? Jesse Ventura? He was no genius but a lot of people knew him.
Re: Manchurian CandidateEd Davis, DPM on 10/10/03 at 14:19 (133453)
I think there does need to be a time element. We don't want a Manchurian Candidate ;) ;) Anyone here old enough to remember that movie??
Re: Manchurian CandidateSharon W on 10/10/03 at 14:22 (133455)
Tell us about it
Re: Manchurian CandidateEd Davis, DPM on 10/10/03 at 14:34 (133461)
I was a little kid when I saw it. A candidate for president is actually a spy for the Red Chinese (terminology of the time) planted in the US, who moves up the ranks of politics, to be re-activated as a 'sleeper' agent when he becomes president.
Re: Manchurian CandidateSharon W on 10/10/03 at 14:40 (133465)
Who played the spy/president, do you remember?
Re: Changing the constitutionRick R on 10/10/03 at 14:45 (133466)
I'm just concerned that our whole system is at risk, or perhaps more at risk these days. It could be Martin Sheen or Sean Penn or whomever. I'm no fan of career politicians. I like to use Jefferson as an example, inventor, planter , musician, archeologist, and oh yea President.
The very first time Mr. Clinton graced my television screne I turned to my wife and said that was our next president. At the time Paul Tsongus(?) or what ever his name was, was the Democratic front runner. It was only by virtue of his appearence, the sound of his name, and his speaking ability I felt he was a shoe in, long before I had a clue what he would claim to stand for. Not a new situation mind you, as you pointed out Grant rode his military fame (Lord knows we couldn't give George H. Thomas the credit for winning the war he was a Virginian) and had little skill for the big chair. Although, today we have a few getting that recognition via the military, If what we are seeing now is an indication that the military pool is being largely replaced by actors I think we are worse off. Lincoln would have a hard time these days with his gangly body and squeeky voice.
I do think that Arnold will prove to be a better choice than his predesessor. For one thing the Republican party has a golden opportunity to strengthen their national position by helping the situation in California. He will be well supported, indeed.
It's going to be interesting to watch.
Re: Manchurian CandidateEd Davis, DPM on 10/10/03 at 14:52 (133468)
I don't remember.
Re: Manchurian CandidatePauline on 10/10/03 at 14:54 (133469)
Your not talking about the 'First' one that came out in late 1800. Naw, your not that old:* Good point.
Re: Manchurian CandidateEd Davis, DPM on 10/10/03 at 14:54 (133470)
Holy smokes. I checked on the web and they are doing a remake.
Re: Changing the constitutionjohn h on 10/10/03 at 14:56 (133471)
Pauline my thought is it would be very hard at this time to get an ammendment passed on an immigrant becoming President because of 9/11. The general population it seems to me are concerned about all the illegal border crossings and recent arrest of American spies. We have recently arrested American military personnel, government officials for spying, This would be a tough atmosphere to pass such an ammendment. Remember the movie 'Manchuring Candidate'? It was a long time ago but a very popular movie with the premise that a spy more or less was to be elected President. Can you visualize in your wildest dreams Americans electing someone from the Middle East as President. We have some people who will not even get on an airplane with them. With Arnold's election there were many things brought up about him and trying to associate him with Nazis. How about electing a man or woman born in France? Not in this day and age. From China? i do not think so. People are spooked at the moment so my guess is we are many years away from changing the Constitution on this subject. I would guess that any politician who brought it up would have a death wish. There seems to be no problems at all with 1st generation immigrants. I think 75% of my friends in high school were children of immigrants. Mostly Italy and Greece. Many of their familes only spoke their native language. They sure had a lock on language classes in high school. They already spoke a foreign language.I think it is amazing that we have an Austrian born man who speaks with an accent as the Governor of the largest state in the union. Bigger than most countries. I do not think this could occur anywhere else in the world and sure says something about the American people. Can you imagine Arnold being elected to some high position in France,China,Turkey, Italy, or anywhere else except perhaps Austria. This could not have happened even 30 years ago.
Re: Manchurian CandidateEd Davis, DPM on 10/10/03 at 14:57 (133472)
Frank Sinatra and Angela Landsbury were the stars.
Re: Manchurian CandidatePauline on 10/10/03 at 14:58 (133473)
We may already have the technology to implant a microchip to awaken a so called 'sleeping agent' in anyone immigrant or native born.
Re: Manchurian Candidatejohn h on 10/10/03 at 14:59 (133474)
Ed what a coincidence. I had just mentioned in a post above about that movie. I remember it well and enjoyed it. A remake. I think it would again be a hit.
Re: Amazon.com link to the movieEd Davis, DPM on 10/10/03 at 15:00 (133475)
Re: Manchurian Candidatejohn h on 10/10/03 at 15:01 (133476)
ED: he was not just a spy but he had been completely brain washed.
Re: Changing the constitutionPauline on 10/10/03 at 15:02 (133477)
Nothing is impossible in America or with Americans. I wouldn't say never just yet. American have very short memories when it comes to election times.
Re: Manchurian CandidateSharon W on 10/10/03 at 15:09 (133480)
Frank Sinatra! No WONDER you remembered that movie!
I wonder if Denzel Washington will do as well...
Re: Manchurian CandidateRick R on 10/10/03 at 15:57 (133495)
Or, how about we prepare ourselves based on the lessons learned via the Venona report? Gee wiz the real thing is scary enough for me.
Re: Changing the constitutionmarie on 10/10/03 at 16:34 (133511)
Rick I'm with you on this one. I just don't understand why we can't attract wholesome Americans to politics. I have not heard alot from Arnold about issues so I can't really judge him fairly. Time will tell.
As far as changing the constitution... I believe one should have spent at least 50% of their life in this country. I don't think years are as important as the percentage of time spent here. So if a 25 year old man or woman imigrated at the age of 25 they would be eligible when they are 50 years old. It certainly makes one ponder.