Amend Constitution to allow foreign born presidents?

Well here's another reason... conservaphobia... anything that Orrin Hatch is for, (Hatch being the very conservative Republican Senator from the very conservative state of Utah), I'm likely to be against. He's the latest senator to push for a Constitutional amendment. Gee whiz, you'd think with a war on, the economy in shambles and division throughout the country, the "leaders" could think of something other than this as a high priority item. So what? Non-native-borns can't be president. Millions of others who were born here won't be president either -- big deal.

According to this piece:Salt Lake City Tribune article

Quote:

(The) retired University of Alabama history professor Forrest McDonald said the prohibition made sense when it was included in the Constitution "and I'm not sure the reasoning is entirely outdated."
He said that 15 years before the Constitution was written, foreign operatives from Russia, Prussia and Austria conspired to get a favorable monarch elected to lead Poland. Once in place, the country was divided up among the three powers.
"The American Fathers were acutely sensitive to the prospect," McDonald said. He said it is unlikely, although not inconceivable, that something like that could happen today.

0 Replies

Hmm, I do think motivation for an opinion is important. For example, people had a hard time justifying why they wanted to keep blacks out of their schools. Sometimes it's just gut, and many times gut is wrong. I consider the why important, otherwise meaningful discussion is prevented.

"We should change the constitution"

"Why?"

"I don't need a why."

I maintain that the original motivation was xenophobia. I happen to consider that xenophobia completely justified at the time but with far less justification now.

Ultimately it's not just a why = because. If people can give no reason for their belief then it's only fair to discount the opinion, it's not a coin toss.

As to amending the constitution I think it should be amended any time it can be improved. Nobody is advocated that it be amended just to prove it can be done.

But yeah, this is small fry. I doubt anyone cares enough about it to change it. Plus, I can be president! I certainly don't care anymore.

0 Replies

I'd agree with the reasoning thing Craven. But I'll also note that no one has listed a good reason why we should change it either. If it ain't broke.. Don't fix it! Wink

0 Replies

I wouldn't voice an objection if it were changed, but I wouldn't go after it either.

0 Replies

fishin' wrote:

I'd agree with the reasoning thing Craven. But I'll also note that no one has listed a good reason why we should change it either. If it ain't broke.. Don't fix it!

Well, I doubt you'll consider it a GOOD reason but I happen to think that eliminating exclusion that does not have a good reason is a good thing.

If there is no good reason to exclude people from something then, IMO, that in itself is a good reason.

0 Replies

I think an ammendment is clearly in order, even necessary. I'll work on the fine points when I have time, but for shorthand, I'll refer to it now as the 'Stop Craven' ammendment.

0 Replies

Everybody on this thread who thinks that the Constitution needs to amended should remember (or be reminded) that in order to amend the Constitution, not only do 2/3 of both the Senate and House have to agree, but 3/4 of the individual state legislatures have to pass this with, I think, a 2/3 majority. It is ludicrous to think that at this point in history we could get that many Americans to agree on anything, let alone a controversial, low-priority issue like this. Foreign-born citizens can aspire to all but this one elected office. They can be governors, senators, UN representatives, supreme court justices and secretaries of state. If I were going to request an amendment to the Constitution that would do more good for more people, it would be to allow the citizens of Puerto Rico and other protectorates the ability to vote for the president since that is their head of state.

0 Replies

Excellent point, Piffka.

0 Replies

Piffka
About Puerto Rico. The people have the choice to join the Union as a state. Remain a commonwealth or nationhood. They to this point choose commonwealth. Which in essence is little more than a welfare state? In my opinion unless and until they choose statehood I for one do not believe they deserve the vote. My attitude is if you want to vote join the party.

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

Yes, WH - but I think the group considered superior is one's own ETHNIC group - and there are many ethnic groups in the USA. People are not formally barred from being president by non-anglo ethnicity - though it seems to be harder to get there for non-anglos - just as here. But it is a small point.

dlowan, et. al. <

Ethnicity and ethnocentrism are not synonymous.

Example: The USA is comprised of citizens from various ethnicities. We will assume, for this example, that all the citizens of the USA -- regardless of ethnicity -- feel superior to people from other countries, e.g., Australia, Cuba, Great Britain, etc. This feeling of superiority is ethnocentrism regardless of ethnicity.

Another way of writing the example a bit more simply: US citizens, regardless of their ethnicity, feel superior to people from other countries because they are ethnocentric, or proud to be Americans. Thus, they believe only native-born Americans should serve as president, regardless of the president's ethnicity.

Thank you!

0 Replies

au1929 wrote:

About Puerto Rico... I for one do not believe they deserve the vote.

Hmmm. It is ok with you that Puerto Ricans don't get to vote in Presidential elections even though he is their head of state? Apparently you are not from Puerto Rico. Very Happy

0 Replies

Thanks, WH.

I think another reason NOT to be exclusive (other than the one Craven has given, which I think is a good reason) is simply to maximise the talent and perspective and variety available for such an important job. I fail to see the relevance of Piffka's:

" So what? Non-native-borns can't be president. Millions of others who were born here won't be president either -- big deal."

No - millions of people will not be president - quite right - the question is not whether they WILL but whether they are legally entitled to be.

Lots of Americans don't vote, either - would it be trivial if a group of Americans were deprived of the right to vote?

Sure - it would be huge to amend - but I have yet to see a good argument against the RIGHTNESS of amendment.

0 Replies

Piffka
I think that since Puerto Rico has the option to become a state and pay for their share of the burden and chooses to be a commonwealth than they should not have the vote. If the want to participate in government than they should be willing to become one of us. That is my opinion. It has nothing to do with being a Puerto Rican but rather that our arms are open wide for them to enter and they do not choose to. IMO opinion the option of commonwealth should be taken off the table. Statehood or independence should be the choice.

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

Sure - it would be huge to amend - but I have yet to see a good argument against the RIGHTNESS of amendment.

When will you be pushing to amend YOUR Constitution to get rid of that silly Queen thing? Surprised

lol

0 Replies

Queen! Silly!!! You and me fishin....twelve o'clock...Plains of Abraham

0 Replies

Will that be jousting or with broadswords? I haven't been in a good joust in years. I do so love a good joust.

0 Replies

What exactly is the rightness of this issue from the Oz and Canadian standpoint?

I don't agree that it is right to allow foreign-born presidents. Other countries don't... why should the United States be any different? Why do we have different countries anyway? Whyever would we want to hire a yokel from somewhere else to do what a local yokel can do?

The reason I bring up the Puerto Ricans is that they are legally entitled to be president, yet cannot even vote... so there, Dlowan, is your group of Americans who are denied the right to vote. Ask Pueo... nobody in Guam can vote either unless they are getting absentee ballots.

0 Replies

But.. aren't those "two wrongs make a right" arguments?

0 Replies

fishin' wrote:

dlowan wrote:
Sure - it would be huge to amend - but I have yet to see a good argument against the RIGHTNESS of amendment.

When will you be pushing to amend YOUR Constitution to get rid of that silly Queen thing? lol

LOL - I BEEN pushing that one since I was seven years of age and refused to stand for the National Anthem on the basis that hereditary privilege was an offence to good sense and democracy! Ain't MY fault we lost the referendum ('twas due to conservative government cunning - if you want the details, I got 'em.)

0 Replies

Possibly, if you are sure that a foreign-born president is the right choice... but which change would do the greatest good?

Why are you sure that we need to have a foreign-born president?

0 Replies

Amend Constitution to allow foreign born presidents?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know