Video: The Presidator?

posted at 9:26 am on December 22, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger told 60 Minutes last night that he wouldn’t mind a bit if Congress and the states amended the Constitution to allow non-native-born citizens the ability to become President. In fact, he’d celebrate in all 50 states by throwing parties, giving speeches, and, er … asking people to vote for him for the top job (via Radio Vice Online):

“The fire season has been extended by climate change”? Really? I lived in California for most of my life, and fire season has always been in autumn. When did these fires hit? In November. In 1997, the year I left California for good, the fires hit at the end of October.

The Governator misses two better reasons why California gets hit by wildfire: droughts and poor forest management. Southern California is essentially a desert with a couple of big man-made oases developed by massive aqueducts and water management. It gets dry constantly, especially in the foothills.  That’s why proper forest management to clear deadwood and to keep brush low is essential, but California forestry officials get constantly hampered by environmentalists who object to disturbing habitats.  That leaves a lot of dry, dead fuel to ignite in these blazes, which accounts for more and hotter fires.

If this is an example of what a Schwarzenegger administration would look like, skip the amendment.  We’ve already elected Obama once.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Arnold will never be elected President. The Constitution says what it says for a reason. We played it too close for comfort this election year. Here is where we draw the line. No foreign-born citizen has the right to run for President, and we would compromise ourselves to even dignify the idea.

manwithblackhat on December 22, 2008 at 9:31 AM

1) I see no reason why the presidency should be limited to natural born citizens. I know many first generation immigrants who would be better presidents than most of the current members of congress.

2) Another reason why there is more growth to burn is that because there is more CO2 in the air, the plants are going bigger. And since they need less water to grow, they are able to utilize habitats that were once barren.

MarkTheGreat on December 22, 2008 at 9:32 AM

Just what America needs. Another RINO.

DannoJyd on December 22, 2008 at 9:35 AM

First, the constitution isn’t with him.
Second, his constituency isn’t going to buck the constitution for anyone… at least, most of them.
Third, he’s a little liberal to get the conservative base hyped.
Fourth, I really don’t think he has the chops to be president. Can republicans please field a president worth a damn please. Someone that can speak well, speak intelligently on all relevant issues, and not cause nauseating heart ache as they betray us?

Enough. I’m a proud supporter of the Governator. He’s a good governor, but he’s not presidential material.

Karmashock on December 22, 2008 at 9:36 AM

Sorry Arnie, it’s bad enough that state governors don’t have to be citizens to serve, but President? No way. Better luck in your next life.

You want a real honest-to-God revolution again, you witless fools in Congress go ahead and amend the Constitution to allow such a thing. I’ll be first in line, rifle in hand, at the doors of your building.

Bishop on December 22, 2008 at 9:36 AM

Sorry Arnie, it’s bad enough that state governors don’t have to be citizens to serve, but President? No way. Better luck in your next life.

Bishop on December 22, 2008 at 9:36 AM

I’m pretty sure that Arnie is a citizen, and has been for years.

MarkTheGreat on December 22, 2008 at 9:38 AM

I wouldn’t mind seein the Constitution ratified to allow foreign-born American citizens to become President, but I would mind having a certain RINO muscleman become President.

jgapinoy on December 22, 2008 at 9:38 AM

Can we handle Arnold? Let us see how The One does.

We may need two Palin terms and a reconstruction era.

Amendment? He don’t need no stinkin’ amendment!

IlikedAUH2O on December 22, 2008 at 9:39 AM

Yes, he’s a citizen — naturalized. You can’t be Governor in any state without being a citizen eligible to vote.

Ed Morrissey on December 22, 2008 at 9:39 AM

Question 1 – Can we give California back to Mexico, as a good will gesture?

Question 2 – Would Mexico be dumb enough to take it?

NoDonkey on December 22, 2008 at 9:42 AM

Weren’t a couple of our first Presidents born in England?

jgapinoy on December 22, 2008 at 9:44 AM

Would Arnie be a good president? No.

Does this mean that all naturalized citizens should be barred from being president? No.

MarkTheGreat on December 22, 2008 at 9:44 AM

Yeah, Arnie has just done an absolutely spectacular job here in California…

BallisticBob on December 22, 2008 at 9:45 AM

Weren’t a couple of our first Presidents born in England?

jgapinoy on December 22, 2008 at 9:44 AM

There’s a clause in that section that includes those who were living in the United States at the time the Constitution was ratified.

I’d be pretty surprised if you can find anyone who is currently covered by that clause though.

MarkTheGreat on December 22, 2008 at 9:45 AM

Yeah, among the 100 million or so eligible citizens available, no one’s more qualified for POTUS than an Austrian rino.

Akzed on December 22, 2008 at 9:46 AM

Fix California first. Then we’ll talk.

SoulGlo on December 22, 2008 at 9:46 AM

Ben Netanyahu–he would be a great US President. Maggie Thatcher would have as well.

jgapinoy on December 22, 2008 at 9:46 AM

Well the ” President elect” is rumored to be an non citizen, which will be the precursor of a non citizen to be elected with out regard to the constitution.

grapeknutz on December 22, 2008 at 9:46 AM

Some of our most patriotic citizens have been born elsewhere.

jgapinoy on December 22, 2008 at 9:47 AM

I bet he can come up with a Hawaian birth acknowledgement and then go to Germany, poison his grandmother and hide his real one..just sharing best practices.

Alden Pyle on December 22, 2008 at 9:47 AM

Hey let’s change the amendment, wouldn’t it be great if George Soros could run? Instead of his proxies that is.

Speakup on December 22, 2008 at 9:49 AM

Considering the current composition of this poor sick government it’s doubtful that the Terminator could make it any worse. Think of it; Al Franken and Arnold securing our future and ensuring our safety . . . maybe it’s about time to pack up and get out of here.

rplat on December 22, 2008 at 9:49 AM

I still would like the Obamessiah to produce his birth certificate after all I had to produce mine to join the Air Force back in 1975 and still have a copy with a raised seal along with mine and my wife’s DD Form 214 in the family fire safe. It should be a snap to get a copy since he is vacationing in Hawaii right now and will finally shut up the tin foil hat conspiracy crowd, provided he has nothing to hide. Should this country survive the next four years all we need is Arnold to do to the rest of the nation what he has done to the People’s Republic of Kalifornia. Roll eyes!

Retired USAF on December 22, 2008 at 9:52 AM

There’s a clause in that section that includes those who were living in the United States at the time the Constitution was ratified.

I’d be pretty surprised if you can find anyone who is currently covered by that clause though.

MarkTheGreat on December 22, 2008 at 9:45 AM

Ben Franklin’s Zombie for President!

- The Cat

MirCat on December 22, 2008 at 9:54 AM

That’s why proper forest management to clear deadwood and to keep brush low is essential, but California forestry officials get constantly hampered by environmentalists who object to disturbing habitats.  That leaves a lot of dry, dead fuel to ignite in these blazes, which accounts for more and hotter fires.

Stupid tree-huggers. It’s because of them that the housing prices went up so high in Florida that most middle class people couldn’t afford to buy.

Weren’t a couple of our first Presidents born in England? – Pinoy

No sir. Washington was born in VA.

Tony737 on December 22, 2008 at 9:55 AM

The natural-born citizen clause of the Constitution is just fine the way it is.

I don’t believe we should change the Constitution because we’ve found an exception to a rule.

Then again, I don’t believe we’ve found an exception. I don’t see Arnold doing such a great job in California. Turn that state around first, then talk to me about getting 33 states to vote yes to amending the Constitution, and then put it up to a nationwide vote and see if it passes.

In other words, Arnold: Not a chance.

Wow. You people are still holding on to the Obama birth certficate nonsense? Do you think the moon landing was a fake, too?

Meryl Yourish on December 22, 2008 at 9:55 AM

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger told 60 Minutes last night that he wouldn’t mind a bit if Congress and the states amended the Constitution to allow non-native-born citizens the ability to become President.

Dream on. I can’t imagine any additional amendments being ratified.

Ben Netanyahu–he would be a great US President. Maggie Thatcher would have as well.

jgapinoy on December 22, 2008 at 9:46 AM

True. But for every Netanyahu/Thatcher, there are a couple of hundred Schwarzendisasters.

Blake on December 22, 2008 at 9:55 AM

Arnold can wish in one hand and…..

:)

bridgetown on December 22, 2008 at 9:55 AM

I’d be pretty surprised if you can find anyone who is currently covered by that clause though.

MarkTheGreat on December 22, 2008 at 9:45 AM

That is the Messiah’s fallback plan.

You see, he is actually the reincarnation of the souls of George Washington, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Jefferson Davis, and Abraham Lincoln wrapped into one. Thankfully, none of their Presidential terms come with their spirit.

BKennedy on December 22, 2008 at 9:57 AM

Well the ” President elect” is rumored to be an non citizen, which will be the precursor of a non citizen to be elected with out regard to the constitution.

grapeknutz on December 22, 2008 at 9:46 AM

The moon is rumored to be made of green cheese.

Both rumors have equal likelyhood of being proven.

BTW, his mom was a citizen at the time of his birth. So he’s a citizen. Period.

MarkTheGreat on December 22, 2008 at 9:57 AM

Retired USAF on December 22, 2008 at 9:52 AM

I’m with Baldilocks on this one. He’s playing up the conspiracy to make conservatives look like nuts.

- The Cat

P.S. He can use it to say, “See, to those racist Republicans blacks aren’t real Americans,” or “See, to those xenophobic Republicans a son of an immigrant isn’t a real American,” etc.

MirCat on December 22, 2008 at 9:58 AM

If I woke up on election day and smoked a lot of dope, I could probably vote for what’s his name.

whitetop on December 22, 2008 at 9:59 AM

Arnold needs to take care of the California budget crisis without a) raising taxes through the roof, b) demanding a bailout from the rest of the country. Do that, and then we’ll talk about changing the constitution.

ajackson on December 22, 2008 at 10:04 AM

Good! so Mark Steyn could run!

Ropera on December 22, 2008 at 10:04 AM

like it or not, he may be the only electable republican in the country right now.

Noneya on December 22, 2008 at 10:07 AM

and Václav Klaus too!

Ropera on December 22, 2008 at 10:07 AM

Sorry Arnold,barring a major constitutional amendment you will have to be satisfied with watching your kids or grandkids run for president. The recent stink over the birthproofers pros and cons should be enough to show that the U.S. is not ready to make that jump. The forefathers wanted singular loyalty to the United States.That is why the citizen clause exists in the first place. I find it funny(terrifyingly scary) how this idea is being “floated” by a RINO. There are a number of people who feel that anyone who wants to should be POTUS but the rules are there for a reason. Strict constitutionalist know this. Heres another thought…Arnold-you know the rules,you had to pass the test to become a citizen-why do you feel you want to change the rules now? Especially after the rules have worked so well for over 200 years-are you arrogant enough to think the rules should not apply to you?

canditaylor68 on December 22, 2008 at 10:08 AM

canditaylor68 on December 22, 2008 at 10:08 AM

What makes you think that someone born in the US will automatically be more loyal to the US than someone who immigrated here?

MarkTheGreat on December 22, 2008 at 10:10 AM

I like the fact that this was predicted in the movie “Demolition Man”!

Stallone: “Hold it! The Schwarzenegger Library?”
Bullock: “Yes, the Schwarzenegger Presidential Library. Wasn’t he an actor?”
Stallone: “Stop! He was President?”
Bullock: “Yes. Even though he was not born in this country, his popularity at the time caused the 61st Amendment…”

RustMouse on December 22, 2008 at 10:10 AM

Weren’t a couple of our first Presidents born in England?

jgapinoy on December 22, 2008 at 9:44 AM

No. They were born British subjects, but they were all born within the borders of what later became the United States of America.

jic on December 22, 2008 at 10:12 AM

The moon is rumored to be made of green cheese.

Both rumors have equal likelyhood of being proven.

BTW, his mom was a citizen at the time of his birth. So he’s a citizen. Period.

MarkTheGreat on December 22, 2008 at 9:57 AM

My bad! I meant to say BORNa citizen of the United States of America!
BTY green cheese is bad for you!

grapeknutz on December 22, 2008 at 10:13 AM

What makes you think that someone born in the US will automatically be more loyal to the US than someone who immigrated here?

MarkTheGreat on December 22, 2008 at 10:10 AM

I think it more has to do with what if we had to go to war with said home country; stuff like that.

- The Cat

MirCat on December 22, 2008 at 10:14 AM

The last thing I want is any amendments to the Constitution by modern-day Einsteins who can’t be bothered to read it, let alone understand it.

DrMagnolias on December 22, 2008 at 10:17 AM

So he thinks he should be rewarded for being Governor when the state went bankrupt (or needed to print its own money to pay for illegal aliens). What makes him think he’s done such a good job? Is it that he didn’t ask the feds for as much money as Paulson?

I’m sure it’s because everyone in Hollywoodland thinks they are doing well because they ignore any constructive criticism. They are all twinkletons who live in an imaginary world.

Arnold would be worse for America than he was for California. . . and do we want ANOTHER Kennedy in the white house (his wife)?

Seriously, there is no reason to be Republican unless you want to use the party in a place like California for a person like Arnold to get all the straight ticket votes.

If we are even considering Arnold (for a variety of reasons), our country is in trouble.

ThackerAgency on December 22, 2008 at 10:19 AM

If Americans have the guts to storm the Capital with guns and start sending heads rolling down the front steps, they they can come up with a new government where foreigners can rule.

As for the wildfire corridors and forest management, read Mike Davis’ Ecology of Fear, an excellent account of urban planning gone awry in Los Angeles with consequences that read like the Book of Revelations. Hilarity.

chunderroad on December 22, 2008 at 10:19 AM

Great. We can have another 2008 election, with a RINO running against Obama. Won’t that be fun?

MadisonConservative on December 22, 2008 at 10:19 AM

This Obama birth cert. thing set a precedent. It was inevitable.
The flood gates are open…
The fact that Arnie never considered this possible and now is talking possibility is telling about what he and 10′s of millions of Americans already know about Obama’s legitimacy as President or shall I say ILLEGITIMACY.

katy on December 22, 2008 at 10:19 AM

The country is in trouble, but the party is dead.

ThackerAgency on December 22, 2008 at 10:20 AM

What makes you think that someone born in the US will automatically be more loyal to the US than someone who immigrated here?

MarkTheGreat on December 22, 2008 at 10:10 AM

I think it more has to do with what if we had to go to war with said home country; stuff like that.

- The Cat

MirCat on December 22, 2008 at 10:14 AM

Bingo

canditaylor68 on December 22, 2008 at 10:20 AM

And I meant “Capitol.” I only started making that mistake recently, and I think it’s a Freudian slip.

chunderroad on December 22, 2008 at 10:20 AM

I like Jean-Claude Van Damme better than the Governator, too.

chunderroad on December 22, 2008 at 10:22 AM

Kindergarten Cop for POTUS? Terminate the thought.

pugwriter on December 22, 2008 at 10:23 AM

NO WAY!!! it protects us from a President with weird foreign ideas. As it is we already have Democrats who want to emulate the worst of socialist Europe. We don’t need a real one coming here, becoming a citizen, and becoming our next “fearless leader”.

But float this with the Left and they’ll be all for it, I guarantee it!

worlok on December 22, 2008 at 10:23 AM

I’m not impressed, after watching him get bitch-slapped around by the slime in California’s teacher’s union.
It wasn’t much of a fight..

TexasJew on December 22, 2008 at 10:24 AM

I think it more has to do with what if we had to go to war with said home country; stuff like that.

- The Cat

MirCat on December 22, 2008 at 10:14 AM

I’m willing to trust the people of the United States to judge whether this possibility is a problem or not.

With some countries, going to war with them in the next 4 to 8 years is a posibility, with others it isn’t.

With some individuals, I believe such a conflict would exist, with others I wouldn’t.

Why would this be a problem with a person who’s parents immigrated when they were 6 months old, but it wouldn’t be if they were born 6 months after the parents immigrated?

MarkTheGreat on December 22, 2008 at 10:29 AM

NO WAY!!! it protects us from a President with weird foreign ideas. As it is we already have Democrats who want to emulate the worst of socialist Europe. We don’t need a real one coming here, becoming a citizen, and becoming our next “fearless leader”.

But float this with the Left and they’ll be all for it, I guarantee it!

worlok on December 22, 2008 at 10:23 AM

If the candidate has weird foreign ideas, then you are free to vote against them.

As you point out, many people born here already have these weird foreign ideas, so eliminating many good people from running does not protect us from these weird foreign ideas.

Might I add that the ideas that were behind the founding of this country, also constituted weird foreign ideas, in their day.

MarkTheGreat on December 22, 2008 at 10:32 AM

Go away Arnold…..the RINO party needs you like they need a bigger hole in their collective heads.

David in ATL on December 22, 2008 at 10:32 AM

Not a surprise re: Ahnold. He’s nothing special,and certainly no reason to amend the Constitution.

Some of the mods/contributors on this board should be interested in Ahnold’s desire. I saw some serious blatant disregard of Article Two’s requirements in the posts on articles on Obama’s birth certificate from the mods. Of course the Constitution disagrees…

Article Two of the Constitution:
A Presidential candidate must be a natural-born citizen of the United States, must be at least thirty-five years old; and must have been a permanent resident in the United States for at least fourteen years.

Of course, a “living document” approach to these requirements suggests it is more of a guideline than a rule that a Supreme Court Justice can just “reinterpret” if they so choose, and what possible harm could come from having a foreign-born national step in to the US and run for office. The whole “documented alien” status is so 1950′s anyway, so the next logical step is to abandon the requirements and documented support and, well, anything that prevents us from doing what we want, as we are marching proudly to this “citizen of the world b.s.”.

Saltyron on December 22, 2008 at 10:32 AM

Why would this be a problem with a person who’s parents immigrated when they were 6 months old, but it wouldn’t be if they were born 6 months after the parents immigrated?

MarkTheGreat on December 22, 2008 at 10:29 AM

OK, I’ll bite. Why not just open it up to even non-citizens who can’t vote? Why have rules at all? Why 35 years old and not 34?

Why have speed limits. Why can a cop stop me and basically rob me if I’m going 75 mph instead of 65 mph?

But this is ultimately your problem (and America’s problem).

I’m willing to trust the people of the United States to judge whether this possibility is a problem or not.

Democracy how our founders set it up was NEVER supposed to be one person one vote. Most people aren’t smart enough to understand politics, much less influence it. The founders knew that. We don’t know that today.

ThackerAgency on December 22, 2008 at 10:34 AM

Here’s another one with the 6 month theme. Why is it OK to kill a baby 6 months before they are born but not 6 months after? It’s the law.

ThackerAgency on December 22, 2008 at 10:34 AM

After 4 years of Obama, this country will probably never again elect a president who is not 100% American. This “Citizen of the World” crap is not going to play well.

AZCoyote on December 22, 2008 at 10:35 AM

I see no reason why the presidency should be limited to natural born citizens.

You probably see no reason to study the Constitution either, or why it says what it says, and what the Founding Fathers intended when they wrote it. If we could start with that, it might actually elevate this conversation.

The downside is, the trolls couldn’t keep up.

manwithblackhat on December 22, 2008 at 10:38 AM

OK, I’ll bite. Why not just open it up to even non-citizens who can’t vote? Why have rules at all? Why 35 years old and not 34?

Why have speed limits. Why can a cop stop me and basically rob me if I’m going 75 mph instead of 65 mph?

ThackerAgency on December 22, 2008 at 10:34 AM

You know Whacker, I have never been impressed by your intelligence before. And nothing you have said today causes me to reasses my already low opinion of you.

Let me see. Arguing that a rule should be changed is equivalent to saying there should be no rules.

Right!!!!

MarkTheGreat on December 22, 2008 at 10:40 AM

ThackerAgency on December 22, 2008 at 10:34 AM

Ziiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiing!

BallisticBob on December 22, 2008 at 10:40 AM

You probably see no reason to study the Constitution either, or why it says what it says, and what the Founding Fathers intended when they wrote it. If we could start with that, it might actually elevate this conversation.

The downside is, the trolls couldn’t keep up.

manwithblackhat on December 22, 2008 at 10:38 AM

Dimbuld, the whole discussion revolves around changing the constitution.

I apologize for assuming that everyone who was reading this article had at least a second grade education.

MarkTheGreat on December 22, 2008 at 10:41 AM

You aren’t arguing that the rule should be changed Mr. Great. You are complaining that it exists.

Oh yeah, you’ve always been impressive in here. Humility has always been your greatest asset. You are a prime example of why the founders did not want EVERYONE to vote.

You represent the uninformed.

ThackerAgency on December 22, 2008 at 10:42 AM

You aren’t arguing that the rule should be changed Mr. Great. You are complaining that it exists.

ThackerAgency on December 22, 2008 at 10:42 AM

I’m guessing, that in what passes for your mind, there is a belief that these two statements are somehow structually different?

MarkTheGreat on December 22, 2008 at 10:44 AM

This would be terrible! Look at how screwed up Ca. is now. Arnuld has done nothing for this State. And he is not much liked here anymore. Arnuld is no Republican! He is a Rhino! At first when he ran, it was because he was a famous actor. If you heard the people say how much they cannot stand him. We need to leave the Constitution alone. We already have a joke that will be thinking he is the Ruler. That sucks in itself.

sheebe on December 22, 2008 at 10:45 AM

Hahaha. I tried to check on how many of this fall’s fires were caused by arson and found this:

Impact on gay marriage rally
A rally protesting the passage of a ballot initiative banning gay marriage had been expected to draw 40,000 protesters to Downtown Los Angeles on November 15, 2008, but drew only only 8,000, which some attributed to the evacuations, freeway closures, and traffic jams resulting from the Sayre Fire. Mayor Villaraigosa attended the rally between news conferences at the Sayre Fire site.[30]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayre_Fire

Blake on December 22, 2008 at 10:45 AM

You know Whacker, amongst your many flaws, I have never been able to add hypocrite. At least not till today.

I remember you arguing back when the olympics were on, that the Chinese gymnasts should not be punished for being underage, because that was a stupid rule.

MarkTheGreat on December 22, 2008 at 10:46 AM

Southern California is essentially a desert with a couple of big man-made oases developed by massive aqueducts and water management.

It continues to boggle my mind that LA was allowed to become so big. The first thing you’re supposed to when settling an area is look at the water supply. I know that it had enough water for the first small settlement, but shouldn’t someone have noticed that expanding it into a city of millions probably wasn’t the best plan. Same thing with Vegas. Who builds a city in a desert?

meltenn on December 22, 2008 at 10:48 AM

Perhaps Ah-Nuld would be better off seeking the Presidency of Austria after he leaves the KA-LEE-FORN-NYUH Governor’s seat. As long as the Constitution remains in place in this country, no way he will ever be President here.

pilamaye on December 22, 2008 at 10:50 AM

They CHANGED the rule. There is no age rule in any other sport. People like you complained to change the rule to create violations where there weren’t any before. She was the same age as Nadia Cominice. Nadia is revered. The Chinese girls (who won the competition of the best in the WORLD) are vilified because they beat the Americans.

You aren’t arguing that there be any stipulation concerning being a natural born citizen. You aren’t saying to change it to where one parent needs to be a citizen or anything. You just want to eliminate the rule altogether and let Osama Bin Laden run for president.

Here’s an idea. Why limit voting to American citizens? Lets have the president of the USA be elected by all the citizens of the world (one person, one vote). If democracy is such a good idea for America, it should be a good idea for the world. Be prepared to be ruled by majority rule. Chinese and Indians.

I’m cheering their athletes because I see what our new overlords will look like once the ‘Americans’ get done amending our Constitution.

ThackerAgency on December 22, 2008 at 10:51 AM

The Constitution should not be amended..that provision is there sop as not to allow someone who has allegiances with another country to be elected.

As it is..Arnold has run California into the sewer and it is now broke. I sure dont want him running the USA. ugh

becki51758 on December 22, 2008 at 10:52 AM

They CHANGED the rule.

——

So only rules that have never been changed need to be followed?

——-

There is no age rule in any other sport.
—–

Last time I checked, the rules for football were different from the rules for basketball.
The rule was put in for a reason that most people found valid.

——-

People like you complained to change the rule to create violations where there weren’t any before.
———-

This is what happens every time a rule is changed. Are you arguing that no rule should ever be changed?

———-

She was the same age as Nadia Cominice.
——–

Nadia followed the rules that existed at the time she competed. The rules regarding scoring have also changed since Nadia competed. Does that mean those rules are also bad?

———-

The Chinese girls (who won the competition of the best in the WORLD) are vilified because they beat the Americans.
———

The chinese girls were never vilified. The officials were.
The chinese officials were vilified because they cheated.
———-

You aren’t arguing that there be any stipulation concerning being a natural born citizen. You aren’t saying to change it to where one parent needs to be a citizen or anything. You just want to eliminate the rule altogether and let Osama Bin Laden run for president.
———

Do you even know how to argue coherently?

Allowing US citizens to run for president means Jeffrey Dahmer, or Ayers could run for president. Does this mean we need to change the rules to prevent US citizens from running for president as well??
———-

Here’s an idea. Why limit voting to American citizens? Lets have the president of the USA be elected by all the citizens of the world (one person, one vote). If democracy is such a good idea for America, it should be a good idea for the world. Be prepared to be ruled by majority rule. Chinese and Indians.

———–

I see that being logically coherent and is not something you feel up to today.

Are you seriously arguing that wishing one rule be changed automatically assumes that you want all rules eliminated?

————-

I’m cheering their athletes because I see what our new overlords will look like once the ‘Americans’ get done amending our Constitution.

——-

Translation, it’s ok for Whacker to want to change rules, but for anyone else, it’s evil.

MarkTheGreat on December 22, 2008 at 10:59 AM

The Constitution should not be amended..that provision is there sop as not to allow someone who has allegiances with another country to be elected.

becki51758 on December 22, 2008 at 10:52 AM

Being born in the US is proof that you are loyal to the US?
Being born elsewhere is proof that you aren’t?

MarkTheGreat on December 22, 2008 at 11:00 AM

To “MarktheGreat:

Would you explain how name-calling (Whacker, Dimbulb)and slander (“what passes for your brain”, “second grade education”)should not be considered TOS violations?

What are you adding to this forum? Have you read the TOS?

Dubya Bee on December 22, 2008 at 11:01 AM

Dubya Bee on December 22, 2008 at 11:01 AM

On this forum, such comments are minor.

Why are you complaining now?

MarkTheGreat on December 22, 2008 at 11:04 AM

DB,

I might add that the comments I was responding to did not exactly fall within Roberts Rules of Order either.

Why are you only complaining about one side? Did I singe someone you agree with?

MarkTheGreat on December 22, 2008 at 11:06 AM

Umm let’s on consider how China would respond to this rule change.

Let’s see if any of you that think the rule should be change can tell where I’m going with this.

- The Cat

MirCat on December 22, 2008 at 11:08 AM

Whacker,

I’m still waiting for you to explain why you believe that rules you agree with must never be changed, and rules you don’t believe in can be ignored.

MarkTheGreat on December 22, 2008 at 11:09 AM

MarkTheGreat on December 22, 2008 at 11:00 AM

I am only stating why the founding fathers put that provision into the Constitution. Obviously, you know nothing about American history, the Constitution or the founding fathers.

becki51758 on December 22, 2008 at 11:10 AM

I am only stating why the founding fathers put that provision into the Constitution. Obviously, you know nothing about American history, the Constitution or the founding fathers.

becki51758 on December 22, 2008 at 11:10 AM

So disagreeing that a rule put into affect 200 years ago still has relevance today, proves that I know nothing about the Constitution, etc.

Interesting turn of logic there lady.
Do you always assume that everyone who disagrees with you is an idiot?

MarkTheGreat on December 22, 2008 at 11:12 AM

Mark,

You have yet to explain WHY we NEED to amend the Constitution (because our founders were so dumb and all – according to you) to allow non-natural born citizens to run for president.

All you said was that they need to change the law giving no reason why except some attacks on people in here who actually like the Constitution.

There are 300 million Americans. If we can’t find one to be president who was born here, then we don’t need to be paying taxes to this government. OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE, and FOR THE PEOPLE. . . BTW means AMERICAN people.

What does it mean to be ‘American’ Mark? To you, what does ‘being American’ mean? Do you support Amnesty for everyone who wants to be American? Does ‘being American’ merely mean people who pay taxes to Washington DC?

For what it’s worth, I’m all for making the world American. But I want to do it with our military imperialistically and tax the heck out of the countries we defeat as has been done throughout the history of the world. Why do we pay OPEC? Why aren’t we getting oil from Iraq for free? Because we are Americans, and we are suckers.

Proof that Americans are suckers is this thread because Americans are all too willing to dilute the importance of the meaning behind being American by amending the Constitution whenever they ‘think’ it’s a good idea because we can’t find enough Americans to run our American government.

I bet you thought Lieberman would make a great R VP candidate too. Melting pot indeed.

ThackerAgency on December 22, 2008 at 11:13 AM

Why amend the Constitution? Why not just ignore that provision? Once 60 million voters vote for Aaanuld, whose gonna question his credentials? He can always go to Hawaii and get one of those late birth certificates then launder it by getting a Certification of Live Birth, then whala, you are a kook to question him as a natural born citizen.

tommylotto on December 22, 2008 at 11:13 AM

Arnie,

Two Years Before the Mast, Dana.(1840)

So Cal has been burning herself out as part of the natural cycle since, well, since God made her So Cal. Fire is required for some of those native plants to reproduce.

Limerick on December 22, 2008 at 11:15 AM

Being born in the US is proof that you are loyal to the US?
Being born elsewhere is proof that you aren’t?

MarkTheGreat on December 22, 2008 at 11:00 AM

Mark, this belies the problem. The requirement is not about proof, but probabilities. The founding fathers were looking to provide the best possible guarantee that the president of the United States would have no allegiances outside of the US. The president’s main job is foreign policy, and having ties to other countries opens the possibility of a conflict of interest when interacting with those same nations diplomatically.

So far this has been productive. I believe there is a clause in the constitution that grandfathered anyone over at the time of ratification, in 1788.

It was never needed. I stopped cataloging when these men were born once it became impossible for the president to have had a birthday in the 1700′s, basically from Abe Lincoln forward.

George Washington – Virginia in 1732
John Adams – Massachusetts in 1735
Thomas Jefferson – Virginia in 1743
James Madison – Virginia in 1757
James Monroe – Virginia in 1758
John Q. Adams – Massachusetts in 1767
Andrew Jackson – North or (more likely) South Carolina in 1767
Martin Van Buren – New York in 1782
William Henry Harrison – Virginia in 1773
John Tyler – Virginia in 1790
James Polk – North Carolina in 1795
Zachary Taylor – Virginia in 1784
Millard Fillmore – New York in 1800
Franklin Pierce – New Hampshire in 1804
James Buchanan – Pennsylvania in 1791
Abraham Lincoln – Kentucky in 1809

Marine_Bio on December 22, 2008 at 11:16 AM

Being born in the US is proof that you are loyal to the US?
Being born elsewhere is proof that you aren’t?

MarkTheGreat on December 22, 2008 at 11:00 AM

Not trying to offend but may I interject this line of thought? August 6,1945 President Truman and the bombing of Hiroshima. Sometimes those difficult decisions have to be made. We now have nuclear capabilities that force choices to be made. We have advanced missile protection systems that can explode nuclear devices sent our way at the point of origins. Im not suggesting a talking point or leaving myself open to be convinced in this. I DO NOT want my president to blink when those tough decisions have to be made because he has family or has loyalties to other countries. I(as an American citizen) have to trust that the president will do the thing that is best for America when the time calls for it to be done. Say what you will but the president holds the codes. If that means that some terrorist regime in Kenya is going to nuke the United States or one of its allies-I pray Obama has the guts to push the little red buttons. This is just an example I use to explain my POV. I apologize if I offend anyone, but I do believe this is the reason I personally feel IMHO that the POTUS should be held to the present constitutional requirements for citizenship.

canditaylor68 on December 22, 2008 at 11:17 AM

You have yet to explain WHY we NEED to amend the Constitution (because our founders were so dumb and all – according to you) to allow non-natural born citizens to run for president.

ThackerAgency on December 22, 2008 at 11:13 AM

In addition to your many other mental problems, reading comprehension now rears it’s head.

I stated that the rule excludes many people who are more qualified than born citizens.

MarkTheGreat on December 22, 2008 at 11:19 AM

Mark, this belies the problem. The requirement is not about proof, but probabilities.

I don’t believe in judging people based on probabilities, I believe in judging them based on who they are and what they have done.

If we believed in judging people based on probabilities, black males would be thrown in jail as soon as they are born.

MarkTheGreat on December 22, 2008 at 11:21 AM

OT

MirCat on December 22, 2008 at 9:54 AM

Don’t I know you from a year or two ago editing on Wikipedia? I vaguely remember sharing interest in Fla politics?

UndertheBridge on December 22, 2008 at 11:21 AM

The Founding Fathers were wiser than any of the current politicians.

Leave the Constitution the Hell alone!

Disturb the Universe on December 22, 2008 at 11:22 AM

Arnold POTUS: Not only no but hell no; he is a pretend Republican. But…his wife is a Kennedy, she could be appointed Senator. I know there are already 2 senators from California…but she’s a Kennedy!!!

HawaiiLwyr on December 22, 2008 at 11:23 AM

I DO NOT want my president to blink when those tough decisions have to be made because he has family or has loyalties to other countries.

Even presidents who were born in the US can, and do have family in other countries.

I point back to my question about a baby born 6 months before a family immigrates, vs. one born 6 months after. Once can be president, one can’t. What’s the difference between them?

MarkTheGreat on December 22, 2008 at 11:23 AM

Ahnuld, thanks but NO THANKS. You’re just as much of a liberal Democrat as John McCain and Barack Obama are. Stay in Cahlyfohniah where you belong. Please.

Tom Blogical on December 22, 2008 at 11:23 AM

I might point out that attitudes regarding foreigners vs. non-foreigners have changed dramatically in the last 200+ years.

200 years ago, a Britain would have told you that someone from France was of a different breed, if not race.

MarkTheGreat on December 22, 2008 at 11:26 AM

Marine_Bio on December 22, 2008 at 11:16 AM

The grandfathered clause was put in by and for Alexander Hamilton who was born in the British West Indies. He expected to eventually get his turn as POTUS but Burr got him first.

tommylotto on December 22, 2008 at 11:27 AM

Third, he’s a little liberal to get the conservative base hyped.

A little liberal? Gimme a break!! This guy is as far left as Obama, in fact Obama may be to the right of Arnold.

Kjeil on December 22, 2008 at 11:28 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3