Amend Constitution to allow foreign born presidents?

fishin...

Rap fight...you wear blue, I'll be in red...

(opening salvo)

...dim early morning... damp river mist and smoke waft slowly across a landscape of bleeding and moaning...camera picks up a mutilated blue jacket being torn to bits by a corgi...audible now, a snare drum
da ba dumdumdum da ba
da ba dumdumdum
da ba dumdumdum da ba
da ba dumdumdum)

YO!
Yokel Yankee you gonna make a scene
spreadin your red all over the green
it ain't gonna help ya, that benzedrine
this boy is pissed you been dissing my queen

You're gonna see me coming, gonna blow a valve
hope ya got yo preacher not yo momma's salve
cause I'm gonna mess ya like in 1812

0 Replies

Piffka wrote:

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.

As was mentioned earlier, they exercised their right to vote. The residents of Puerto Rico chose (repeatedly) not to seek statehood on multiple occassions. They chose to deny themselves the right to vote for a President. Why should the Constitution be amended to grant them something that they've stated they don't want?

0 Replies

Three occasions. However, Puerto Ricans can be president. Don't you see that as odd?

0 Replies

Piffka wrote:

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?

I think we neither need it nor will ever see it happen, but as a matter of principle I think rules should have justification for their existence.

We don't NEED not to have a law requiring us all to wear underwear....

0 Replies

Piffka wrote:

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

I don't know what you mean here, Piffka. What does an argument about rightness have to do with what country one is in when one makes it? Ar eyou saying I ought not to be commenting because I am not from the US?

Piffka wrote:

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?

What have other countries to do with right or wrong? As I have said above, I am not sure about Oz and the PM - though I KNOW we allow foreign-born MPs. It would therefore be, in my view, both illogical AND wrong if we do not allow a foreign-born PM. I am trying to find out on the net what the status is - no luck - and I can't ring Canberra from work (ethically). I will find out when I am on holidays. And we speak, do we not, of yokels, in an immigarnt culture, who serve their time - are they not to be considered "local" at some point?

Piffka wrote:

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.

That seems dashed odd to me - but i do not know enough to comment...

0 Replies

The justification is we don't trust foreigners. Geez. I thought that was obvious.

0 Replies

Piffka wrote:

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?

Not sure who you are addressing that to - but here is my answer - surely there has to be a reason to EXclude the talent of a reasonably large segment of your population, rather than a reason to INclude? Why do you need NOT to have a foreign born president?

0 Replies

So - xenophobia is a good enough reason? scratches head....we are an odd species...

0 Replies

Candians quite cleverly don't say who can be prime minister and had foreign-born PMs in the beginning ... from Scotland one, I think, from England.

Australia, like the United States, allows foreign-born to hold every office but the top one, at least in practice.

0 Replies

You have a law requiring the wearing of underwear?

\l/
O-< B =
/l\

hops off in bemused amazement....

0 Replies

Are you saying Australia constitutionally forbids foreign born PMs? I think we are speaking of in principle here, are we not?

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

YO!
Yokel Yankee you gonna make a scene
spreadin your red all over the green
it ain't gonna help ya, that benzedrine
this boy is pissed you been dissing my queen

You're gonna see me coming, gonna blow a valve
gonna hope ya got yo preacher not yo momma's salve
cause I'm gonna mess ya like in 1812

Rap fight?? Yer in trouble bub. Wink

Yo yo yo!
Lil canuck boy - talkin' yo rap
back to yer maples, back to collectin' mo sap
Ya got ya a Queen - got no President
No real Chief Exec you can really resent

Yer slamin' our system, ventin' yer spleen
But all ya really got is a bad drag queen
Bring on yo rap, bring on yo challenge
By the time we be done you'll be bloody spent
No holds barred. No Treaty of Ghent!

0 Replies

Deb - We are not speaking in principle. We're speaking of a recent drive by the Republicans (though Democrats have occasionally entered the fray) to allow foreign-born presidents. It appears to me to be a politically motivated scheme which will rouse some people and possibly get them votes... with immigrants.

If fair were fair, then there would be no countries and we'd all live as a happy family.

0 Replies

oooooh - goooody!

BLAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAATHAM!!!!!!!!

0 Replies

Piffka wrote:

Candians quite cleverly don't say who can be prime minister and had foreign-born PMs in the beginning ... from Scotland one, I think, from England.

Australia, like the United States, allows foreign-born to hold every office but the top one, at least in practice.

Neither Canada nor Australia allow anyone other than the Sovereign of England to hold to position of Chief of the Executive Branch of their governments. Both limit the office holder to one very specific foreigner.

0 Replies

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm - verrrry interesting - but a damned shame....

0 Replies

fishin

Brilliant!

0 Replies

Fishin 1 blatham 0 Laughing

0 Replies

fishin' wrote:

Piffka wrote:
Candians quite cleverly don't say who can be prime minister and had foreign-born PMs in the beginning ... from Scotland one, I think, from England.

Australia, like the United States, allows foreign-born to hold every office but the top one, at least in practice.

Neither Canada nor Australia allow anyone other than the Sovereign of England to hold to position of Chief of the Executive Branch of their governments. Both limit the office holder to one very specific foreigner.

I meant, of course, the Prime Minister for Australia as well as the one for Canada, but yes, you are certainly right, the British Commonwealth holds closely to their queen.

0 Replies

Piffka
I believe that all a Puerto Rican need do is to move to the states register as a resident and they can vote. I would suppose that may be the rational if there is one for allowing a Puerto Rican to become president.

0 Replies

Amend Constitution to allow foreign born presidents?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know