Posted on 05/04/2007 8:15:43 AM PDT by NormsRevenge
With the state's Austrian-born governor sitting 20 feet away in the audience, the bulk of the Republican candidates for president said Thursday they did not favor changing the Constitution to let Arnold Schwarzenegger or other foreign-born citizens run for president.
That put the broad GOP field at odds with Schwarzenegger, who has long said he and other immigrant citizens should have the opportunity to run for president.
Early on, moderator Chris Matthews polled the 10 Republicans on stage at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library near Simi Valley, asking whether they would support the constitutional amendment needed to allow Schwarzenegger to run.
Two of the candidates said yes: former New York City Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.
A definite maybe was registered by Arizona Sen. John McCain, who quipped that he was still angling for Schwarzenegger's support in the 2008 presidential campaign.
"Depends on whether he endorses me or not," McCain said. Then he said: "He and I have many similar attributes, so I have to seriously consider it."
The rest said no.
Schwarzenegger at times seemed the 11th person in the debate.
He escorted Nancy Reagan into the pavilion and sat next to her in the first row of the audience. Afterward, when the candidates went to greet the frail former first lady, Schwarzenegger stood next to her, protectively holding her arm.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Huckabee and Rudy .. suhprize suhprise
Didn’t Huck say after his 8 years in office he would think about it? That’s not neccessarily a yes vote!
No surprise the most liberal candidate (Rudy Giuliani) supports it, or that the moron who talks of allowing illegal aliens amnesty to “atone for the past treatment of minorites in the south” (or something close to that effect) would support changing our Constitution basically for just Schwarzenegger.
I think requiring you be at least 35 years old, born in the U.S. and have lived in the U.S. for at least 14 years to run for the office of president in this country are very reasonable requirements.
What do you think the purpose of this clause is? It appears to me that it was designed to ensure that anyone who becomes President only has fealty to the US Constitution. As far as I'm concerned, that can be done without having been born inside the US. Currently it is undefined whether a child born by US citizen parents (for example, in the military) is a natural born citizen for this purpose. Those children currently receive their citizenship rights at birth by statute, not by the Constitution. But would you question that they have any less fealty to the US Constitution than those born in the US? And would you like to have the Supreme Court decide that in a Presidential election? Many of the immigrants that I know have more fealty to the US Constitution than our natural born citizens. It seems absurd to me to think that they are somehow not qualified to be our top leader as well.
Huckabee never had a chance to begin with. And now, I’ve completely written Rudy off.
Sorry, if you weren’t born in this country, you shouldn’t be president. The requirements are not that great.
I’m fairly certain any opinion poll would show most Americans agree with me too. Leave the U.S. Constitution alone.
I’m fairly certain any opinion poll would show most Americans agree with me too. Leave the U.S. Constitution alone.
Can you justify your argument with anything other than a populist argument or are your reasons actually that weak?
Yeah, because yours were so breathtaking.
What is so weak about an argument that a person who is born to a US citizen (like someone whose parent was deployed abroad in the military) deserves the Constitution (not just statute) to recognize that they are a citizen and have the right to try to become the President? And what is so weak about an argument that an immigrant who lives in the US for most of their lives should have the right to try to become the President? Does it also bother you that we’ve had immigrants who have become 4 star generals and admirals, who serve in Congress, and who have received the Medal of Honor? Are those citizens not patriotic enough for you? Do they not have the leadership potential to become the President? Or are people like Bill and Jimmy infinitely more qualified because they were born in the US?
Do you also believe that children of military personnel don’t deserve full citizenship rights if they are born out of this country (read the 14th amendment, it isn’t clear on this issue)? Is there some magical process that occurs when you are born inside the US that makes you a better person, like Bill and Jimmy? Do you believe the leadership qualities of people who have firsthand suffered the oppression of communism and instead fled to the US have nothing to add to the qualities that makes a great President?
You have given no reason why you oppose this change, yet I have given you detailed reasons. If my reasons were so weak then it should be trivial for you to discredit them. Why can’t you? Or are you just going to use the Democratic tactic of ignoring questions you don’t know how to respond to and that question your beliefs? It is easy to never have to respond to an argument if you call the other side childish and stupid.
Oh, wait, now that I think of it, you have given a reason: populism. If you truly believe that then you would consider Vladimir Lenin and Hugo Chavez great leaders.
i’m sorry i voted for ahnold once,
but i did not the second time.
Hugo and Fidel weren’t born here either, but that does make for an interesting strawman.
I’m a staunch Republican and absolutely agree with you. I believe once someone is a full citizen, he or she should be able to enjoy all rights and privileges of all other citizens who haven’t had their civil liberties taken away through illegal conduct. Similarly, I believe there should be no minimum age of 35. If someone is legally able to vote he should legally be able to run for and hold public office.
Their children are considered natural born citizens--just like John McCain, born in the Panama Canal Zone. (It's been the law since 1790).
>>>Can you justify your argument with anything other than a populist argument or are your reasons actually that weak?
How about 2 cents from this ‘populist’ denizen?
In the 30s, Dr. Edmund Veesenmayer went to other countries to prop up their own puppet regimes to assimilate to the borg, er, Berlin. Just ask Gov. Schwarzenegger, I’m sure he even knows details the rest of us wouldn’t know since his family is from one of these areas.
A better gripe about running for office would be finances. This keeps the common or ‘populist’ denizen out of office. Foreign born is a non issue.
Natural born ensures a person has a vested interest in protecting and defending the Constitution as his oath would require. (otherwise some of those types who like to go around waving foreign flags could become president and undermine the USA in favor of their homeland.)
The age 35+ is to ensure that the person seeking office has some experience.
14 years residence prior to running ensures that the person seeking office be up to date with the issues and opinions of the people he is going to represent.
These are quite reasonable and sensible requirements for holding the highest office of the land. I see no reason in changing them.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.Nowhere in the Constitution are people like John McCain explicitly considered natural born citizens as required for the Presidency. Findlaw discusses this in more detail here and here.
>>>If you truly believe that then you would consider Vladimir Lenin
Lenin was popular? Or was that propaganda? I believe he had to hide in Switzerland because the populism was for the October Manifesto and NOT for Communism.
It took GERMAN officers to get him back into Russia and place him upon his thrown after the Tsar was murdered.
And I will not vote for a candidate that would fool with our constitution.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.