News Foreigners’ presidential eligibility

[Ivan Seeking]

I don't want to exclude Arnold specifically. He might make a great President. I said early on that I like some of what I hear from California. My objection is that these guys want to change the Constitution because they see a superstar in Arnold. This is not only dangerous, it is flat out un-american. The Constitution must stand above partisan issues. Is is the most important document that we have.

Again, as soldiers, people like Russ swore to defend the Constitution with their life. That's how important it is. They don't defend the President, or Congress, or the lives of Supreme court judges, they swear to defend the Constitution. Think about it. Is this something to be taken lightly; subject to the whims of partisanship. This is a complete disgrace. Hundreds of thousands of people have died in defense of this document. We had a civil war over this document.

 

[russ_watters]

Since you are all really sincere that this is about equal rights, and not Arnold, I'm sure that at least you would agree that if an amendment was made, it should not take effect for at least twenty years. This would insure that no impropriety is involved.

Certainly. If your basic objection is that this would be an issue made for one man, I'll agree that amending the Constitution to benefit one person is a bad thing. I thought you had a more fundamental objection to it.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Then it seems that we agree. How about that!

I certainly have no problem with a serious review of the law. However, if this is allowed to apply to Arnold, or anyone even potentially of interest to the political world, no matter how great he or she may be, we could never trust that a wise, informed, and unbiased decision is made re the constitutional amendment. No candidate is worth that risk. The twenty years was plucked from thin air but it seemed like a reasonable number.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I couldn't find a link yet but today I saw this touted as "Arnold's Law". Anyway, here is an interesting quote, I thought.

Support for amending the Constitution to allow naturalized citizens to serve as president came Thursday from House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco..."I think the 35-year provision probably makes more sense, that somebody is raised in our country or has lived here long enough to have an appreciation for the culture and the beautiful diversity of our country to serve as our president,'' she added.

Opposition came from Rep. Tom Lantos, D-San Mateo, who was born in Budapest, Hungary, arrived in this country in 1947 and became a citizen in 1952. "I am irrevocably opposed. Our Constitution should only be amended for the most pressing and substantive reasons. There are 250 million native-born Americans, and there ought to be enough talent among them to find someone to serve as president.

"But if there is a restoration of the Austro-Hungarian empire, I am ready to consider a joint candidacy with Arnold, provided I am on top of the ticket. '' [continued]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/10/01/MNGP0927TG1.DTL