February 22nd, 2004, 11:53pm
Our wise forefathers established the Constitution and many laws. One of those happens to be that the President of the United States has to be born a United States citizen. That way no foreign person or foreign political power can control our country. Schwarzenegger wants to change the laws so he can be president.
This is my own personal opinion. I like Schwarzenegger fine, but I will do my best to make certain that someone born in another country NOT become president.
I am in Federal Government. I see people with criminal records becoming US citizens. Do I want to give these people the opportunity to run for president? No way!! I am not calling Schwarzenegger a felon nor stating he has a record. But he doesn't have the right to run for president and I will never vote to allow a foriegn born person run for president. Too many opportunities for problems later.
My question is, do other countries allow foreign born citizens run for their political offices much less their commander and chief? Chances are no. lol
I'll get off my soapbox now. I just don't think it's right
February 23rd, 2004, 12:05am
I don't know if I would OK the change. I do know it's hard to change the constituton and it should be. I can't imagine it changed in time for Arnold to run for prez.
February 23rd, 2004, 8:32am
I'm not sure that I would agree with that type of constitutional change either. I believe that the history behind that portion of the constitution was so that the President would feel no alliegence to another country that would compromise his ability to govern so issues regarding his native country arise.
February 23rd, 2004, 9:09am
I don't think I would want the COnstitution changed for that. No offense to people born in other countries but if we are going to make the change just so Arnold can run, well I say NO.
February 23rd, 2004, 11:00am
I agree that our Constitution shouldn't be changed to allow non-US-born citizens to run for President.
I'm in favor of fewer, rather than more, amendments.
February 25th, 2004, 5:53am
My dh was born and raised in another country- Norway. But I will say that he honestly speaks English better than most Americans (myself included, lol), his knowledge of American history would impress anyone, as well as of American trivia facts like the tallest mountain, longest river, location of each state, capitals, government structure, and so much more. Lucky for us, he would never want to get involved here politically! :laugh: He is socialist thinking and I tend to like knowing that American presidents must be born on American soil. Golly, though, is it interesting living with a socialist (extreme democrat doesn't come close)! Schwarzenegger can stick to CA! :cool2:
February 26th, 2004, 9:47pm
What the Founding Fathers were afraid of.
By Brendan I. Koerner
Posted Thursday, Feb. 26, 2004, at 12:56 PM PT
California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, an Austrian native, has been arguing that the Constitution should be amended to allow foreign-born citizens to seek the presidency. Why did the Constitutional framers deem it necessary to limit the nation's highest office to "no person except a natural born citizen"?
Though their concerns may now seem archaic, the framers were genuinely afraid of foreign subversion. Among their nightmare scenarios was the prospect of a European noble using his money and influence to sway the Electoral College, take command of the American army, and return the nascent nation to the royalist fold. At the time, several European figuresósuch as France's Marquis de Lafayette, a hero of the Revolutionary Warówere quite popular in the New World, so the idea wasn't completely far-fetched.
The framers also took a lesson from Europe, where dynasties constantly schemed against one another. The men who drafted the Constitution were certainly familiar with the tragic example of Poland, where agents from Russia, Prussia, and Austria conspired to install a friendly monarch, Stanislaus II, and subsequently seized upon his weakness and partitioned the country among themselves. Keep in mind, too, that dynasties occasionally shuffled around Europe regardless of national origin; England's King George I, for example, was a Hanoverian who spoke zero English.
There is scant primary source material attesting to the 1787 Constitutional debate over Article II, Section I, which contains the "natural born" provision. The potential scourge of foreign influence, however, is mentioned several times in the Federalist Papers. And in a letter dated July 25, 1787, John Jay, the future first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, wrote to George Washington:
Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.
The Constitution does include an exemption for "a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution," as the framers themselves had been born subjects of the British crown. Also, the founding document doesn't include a definition of "natural born." The formal definition is now covered by Title 8, Section 1401 of the United States Code and includes not just citizens born on American soil, but also those born outside the nation to parents who are citizensóan exception that covers, for example, the children of military personnel serving overseas.