« Yassar Arafat Avenue? | Main | Breaking News: Muslim Immolates Self At White House »
November 15, 2004
Hail To The Foreigner? Hell No.
US Constitution, Article II, Section 1
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.
So very simple. Our founding fathers were ingenious, and their time tested wisdom made the United States Constitution the longest lasting and most mimicked consitution in history. For that very reason, changes to the constitution are not all that common, or simple--nor should they be.
Presently, President Bush has supported a constitutional amendment defining marriage between a man and woman. While many conservatives agree that marriage is and should only be between a man and woman, they do not agree that this merits amending the constitution. On many instances, I agree, but on other aspects of the argument, I disagree.
Philosophically, conservatives are content with permanence and maintaining tradition--thus the basis of not amending the constitution in response to the issue of gay marriage. Another issue of constitutional consequence has also divided its support amongst conservatives--or at least, appears to be. This issue is being catapulted into discussion by a series of advertisements that will soon be running in California.
Californians will soon see advertisements urging them to help give Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and other foreign-born citizens the chance to run for president.The cable television ads, set to being running Monday, are from a Silicon Valley-based group that wants to amend the U.S. Constitution, which limits the presidency to people born in the United States. Schwarzenegger was born in Austria but became a U.S. citizen in 1983.
"You cannot choose the land of your birth. You can choose the land you love," Lissa Morgenthaler-Jones says in the ads.
I have nothing against the Governor, but there is a reason that we only allow natural born citizens to be president. Oddly, the same kind of arguments I use for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage are the same ones I use to argue to keep the constitution as it is in regards to the president being a natural born citizen. Changing the rules just so Arnold Schwarzenegger, or any foreign born person can run for president would set a horrible precedent. Suppose we did allow foreign born citizens to run for president, what comes next? The domino effect occurs. Perhaps if Democrats ever do get their grubby hands on the presidency and congress again, maybe someday citizenship won't be required in the United States, and then in order to be fair, they would try to pass an amendment saying that anyone residing in the United States, natural or foreign born, may run for president--citizenship not required.
Am I jumping the gun here? Perhaps, but despite the domino effect argument, the Presidency is a symbolic and powerful position in the United States, and the purity of the office must be maintained, and only for full blooded Americans. I have no bias against the foreign born, but with the high stakes of the Presidency, allegiance must not be questionable.
Posted by Aaron at November 15, 2004 12:11 PM
Copyright © 2007 by author. May not be copied, published, or otherwise used (except for brief quotes) without express permission of author. Articles published with permission by Pardon My English.
-->Comments
No friggin' way will this pass Constitutional Amendment muster.....not while I'm still alive and a gun owner.
Posted by Sarge at November 15, 2004 12:11 PM
Kerry and I had a discussion about this a while ago. While the proximal reason for this is proves suspect (really, who loves America for what it is more and is less likely to put it under the conrol of others -- native-born American Noam Chomsky or Austrian-born Arnold Schwarzenegger) and thus is entirely nativist, but it still seemed good, or at least not worth changing. I might be convinced on merits, but changing the Constitution because "Yay Arnold!" isn't going to play with me at all.
Posted by Tall, But Also Dark And Handsome at November 15, 2004 12:11 PM
I don't think you're jumping the gun. This is an issue that has been getting much more play lately and worthy of discussion. I'm in complete agreement that changing the Constitution for any of the reasons you mentioned is bad.
Posted by Androminos at November 15, 2004 12:11 PM
When is the ACLU gonna deem it unConstitutional that a foreignor can't exercise his/her imaginary civil "rights" by running for POTUS?
Isn't THAT how you get something deemed unconstitutional these days?
Posted by Sarge at November 15, 2004 12:11 PM
Yaep, you're absolutely right Aaron. The reason why the Constitution stablishes such issue is to avoid persons with a foreign backgrounds rule America because they might interpose foreign interests. California's 'Governator' may be an excellent american, but he didin't go to school in America, he didn't grow up in America etc... Constitution also protects America from being ruled by a non american born muslin, french or somebody else that does not fulfill the profile.
Posted by Alberto Laija at November 15, 2004 12:11 PM
Ah-nold is one of the most brazen, egotistical, self-promoting bastards alive. I say this, and I [i]like[/i] the guy, even if he a RINO. No way in hell do we start editing the constitution for his ass, period.
Posted by Graumagus at November 15, 2004 12:11 PM
You know this same instance was mentioned in the movie Demolition Man, with Sylvester Stallone.(This movie is, over, 11 years old)
Posted by Peter Gryphon at November 15, 2004 12:11 PM
No friggin' way will this pass Constitutional Amendment muster.....not while I'm still alive and a gun owner.
Posted by Sarge at November 15, 2004 12:11 PM
Kerry and I had a discussion about this a while ago. While the proximal reason for this is proves suspect (really, who loves America for what it is more and is less likely to put it under the conrol of others -- native-born American Noam Chomsky or Austrian-born Arnold Schwarzenegger) and thus is entirely nativist, but it still seemed good, or at least not worth changing. I might be convinced on merits, but changing the Constitution because "Yay Arnold!" isn't going to play with me at all.
Posted by Tall, But Also Dark And Handsome at November 15, 2004 12:11 PM
I don't think you're jumping the gun. This is an issue that has been getting much more play lately and worthy of discussion. I'm in complete agreement that changing the Constitution for any of the reasons you mentioned is bad.
Posted by Androminos at November 15, 2004 12:11 PM
When is the ACLU gonna deem it unConstitutional that a foreignor can't exercise his/her imaginary civil "rights" by running for POTUS?
Isn't THAT how you get something deemed unconstitutional these days?
Posted by Sarge at November 15, 2004 12:11 PM
Yaep, you're absolutely right Aaron. The reason why the Constitution stablishes such issue is to avoid persons with a foreign backgrounds rule America because they might interpose foreign interests. California's 'Governator' may be an excellent american, but he didin't go to school in America, he didn't grow up in America etc... Constitution also protects America from being ruled by a non american born muslin, french or somebody else that does not fulfill the profile.
Posted by Alberto Laija at November 15, 2004 12:11 PM
Ah-nold is one of the most brazen, egotistical, self-promoting bastards alive. I say this, and I [i]like[/i] the guy, even if he a RINO. No way in hell do we start editing the constitution for his ass, period.
Posted by Graumagus at November 15, 2004 12:11 PM
You know this same instance was mentioned in the movie Demolition Man, with Sylvester Stallone.(This movie is, over, 11 years old)
Posted by Peter Gryphon at November 15, 2004 12:11 PM
No friggin' way will this pass Constitutional Amendment muster.....not while I'm still alive and a gun owner.
Posted by Sarge at November 15, 2004 12:11 PM
Kerry and I had a discussion about this a while ago. While the proximal reason for this is proves suspect (really, who loves America for what it is more and is less likely to put it under the conrol of others -- native-born American Noam Chomsky or Austrian-born Arnold Schwarzenegger) and thus is entirely nativist, but it still seemed good, or at least not worth changing. I might be convinced on merits, but changing the Constitution because "Yay Arnold!" isn't going to play with me at all.
Posted by Tall, But Also Dark And Handsome at November 15, 2004 12:11 PM
I don't think you're jumping the gun. This is an issue that has been getting much more play lately and worthy of discussion. I'm in complete agreement that changing the Constitution for any of the reasons you mentioned is bad.
Posted by Androminos at November 15, 2004 12:11 PM
When is the ACLU gonna deem it unConstitutional that a foreignor can't exercise his/her imaginary civil "rights" by running for POTUS?
Isn't THAT how you get something deemed unconstitutional these days?
Posted by Sarge at November 15, 2004 12:11 PM
Yaep, you're absolutely right Aaron. The reason why the Constitution stablishes such issue is to avoid persons with a foreign backgrounds rule America because they might interpose foreign interests. California's 'Governator' may be an excellent american, but he didin't go to school in America, he didn't grow up in America etc... Constitution also protects America from being ruled by a non american born muslin, french or somebody else that does not fulfill the profile.
Posted by Alberto Laija at November 15, 2004 12:11 PM
Ah-nold is one of the most brazen, egotistical, self-promoting bastards alive. I say this, and I [i]like[/i] the guy, even if he a RINO. No way in hell do we start editing the constitution for his ass, period.
Posted by Graumagus at November 15, 2004 12:11 PM
You know this same instance was mentioned in the movie Demolition Man, with Sylvester Stallone.(This movie is, over, 11 years old)
Posted by Peter Gryphon at November 15, 2004 12:11 PM
Note: Comments once posted become the property of Pardon My English. We therefore reserve the right to make use of such in any manner and for whatever purpose we deem appropriate. Please refer to comment policy for further information.
