Should the US Constitution be changed to Suit One Man's Ego and Ambitions?

Remove all ads!

Talk about ego. Here is a guy who would put his own ambitions before the good of the country. While all the latest political talk the last few days has been about Nader's ego, on the same program - Meet the Press - this guy said that the Constitution should be changed to include those who have not been born in the US. IMO, it's disgraceful that egos have gotten this large in politics. But then this guy was a movie star before he decided to save CA with his know-how and wisdom, so he's probably use to getting whatever he wants.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4344297/

[ February 25, 2004, 02:12: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

Let me quite clear on this. I don't nessecarily think that changing the Constitution that way would be a bad thing. I also don't think it would be a good thing. In point of fact, I haven't even thought about it much. (Although I certainly will now, especially if it's already been proposed in the Senate) However, I have to say, that is EGO. Not wanting to run for President, and not suggesting it, but suggesting it in such a way? Yowza.

 

Now that's a damning question topic CtR. The only response to it is obviously 'no'. However, in the article Arnie states that he has no intention of running for president anyway, so it's not exactly for his ambitions. And I fail to see how this would have anything to do with his ego.

Should that law be changed? Well I'm not a US citizen and I have no intention of living in America, however it seems to be a law that is rather pointless. Just because you're not born somewhere doesn't mean you will have malicious intentions towards that same said country, and just because you are doesn't mean you don't hold those views. I'm certain that's why that law is in place.

It's not like swarms of people run for president anyway. Arnie's suggestion is very logical, sure, it's probably arisen because he's a foreigner but is that a reason it shouldn't hold merit?

Why limit the potential candidates for presidency based on their geographical birthplace?

[ February 24, 2004, 13:07: Message edited by: Abomination ]

 

Would it make a difference if the Constitution was change? Would you vote for Mr Schwarteneggar?

 

Anybody see the movie "Demolition Man"? There was a scene when Stallone's character is in the future and Bullock's character is talking about the Schwartzeneggar Presidential Library. She explains that due to his popularity, congress changed the constitution so that non-native Americans could run for president.
Phrophetic?

 

Good point, Elios!

Although I think even then, his political aspirations were apparent, even if he was denying them at the time.

 

It might not be very comfortable that it is Arnold who suggests this but the law in itself is kinda silly. I cant see how birthplace can have anything to do with your ability to lead a country, citizenship must be more than enough.

 

Before we put Arnie in the Oval office I think we need to see how he turns out in California. However, if he does manage to turn California around even remotely, he would spell doom for any Democratic candidate in 2008.

 

Excuse my ignorance, but was George Washington born in the USA? If he was, it must have been a close run thing.

I agree that there does not seem to be any good argument for having this restriction.

 

Perhaps, but then by next year we may have someone (and I don't mean Shrub) in office who MIGHT turn the country around.

George Washington was born in Virginia.

My point is that the debate/discussion should be about what's best for the country not what we can do to accommondate political ambitions, regardless of who it is.

 

While it's disgraceful if egos prevail in a nation's politics, and I'm not enthusiastic about the idea of Arnold in power, but I don't understand why letting non-US-born citizens run for President should be disgraceful and why it should be such a great defeat for all the US stand for

 

For once I agree 100% with the everfull chalice knight. The fact that it is Arnie is a complete red herring and irrelevant to the issue in question. Arnie could get the law changed and then someone else, like me for example, could come in and use it to my benefit.

 

Raise your hand if Arnie's suggestion to ammend the constitution to include him as an eventual presidential candidate is a surprise.

*crickets chirping*

Okay. Now raise your hand if Arnie's suggestion to ammend the constitution to include him came this soon in his political career.

Hmmm. Okay, that's just about everybody. Except for you, Ms. Shriver.

While I don't think it's a bad thing to ammend the constitution to entertain foreign-born citezens as presidential candidates, I don't think it's really necessary - especially in his case. That said, while I also think such an ammendment is only a natural evolution of the "melting pot," I don't think Arnold has proven himself worthy enough politically to be the basis for the precedent. If it's right, it's right - but Arnold's still green. If he can pull Kall-EE-fonia out of the dumps during his tenure (not likely, but not impossible), then such a miracle would warrant consideration.

I will say this: Arnie's got a lot of balls to bring this up so soon. And I don't mean that in a good way. Pretentious isn't the right word, but it's the first one that comes to mind.

 

I have to ask all you to bear with me a bit as I lay out evidence of a deeper problem. The Aronld/big ego thing is just the surface of a pattern that has emerged in recent US politics.

Here's the pattern: Impeachment to overturn an election of a popular president; have relatives and cronies use the political/justice machinery to turn off an election (2000); redistrict to get the desired results, regardless of how outrageous; hold recall election at the opportune moment of state crisis; amend the US Constitution to open the way for popular party members to run for high office. Remember that we are talking about a party that doesn't even want anymore immigrants, especially from south of the border.

I'm asking all of you to bear with me a bit, because I am drawing a biased conclusion from a set of events that could be interpreted in some other way. Nevertheless, the larger question is if these actions were done to better the intrest of the country at large, or as a set of actions designed to grab power for a particular political party. What's next, calling off elections because of a "terrorist" spawned national emegency? The end game worries me.

 

Well, it takes more than one man to ammend the Constitution, so don't fret.

 

Politics has probably always been like that. If you could travel back in time, you'll probably find that all your heroes like Lincoln and Jefferson were just as bad and rigged things all over the place. The only difference is that they were able to rig the historical records of the time as well (they probably owned the newspaper companies or something).

What exactly is it that you are worried about happening and how do you think it would affect you personally?

 

This is just to respond to one part of CtR's post.

Let me assure you that, as a voting Democrat of California, Gray Davis was terrible and deserved to be recalled. It's not reasonable to blame Davis for all of California's problems--there are problems from the legislature straight down to the voters (me ) to cause a problem of this magnitude--but he did nothing to help and a great deal to make the situation worse. I voted for him both times he got elected, though the second was because Davis was smart enough to knock out the only decent contender by running negative ads during the Republican primaries. I didn't vote for Arnold, either, before anyone asks. My first comment to my wife after we saw the recall/election returns: well, at least he can't run for President.

 

You know what's funny? This subject's title also applies to some other famous Republican making announcements today.

Bush calls for same-sex marriage ban constitutional ammendment

Not so much "ha-ha" funny, more like incredibly sad, hollow and retrogressive funny.

 

And I thought I was cynical.

As for the worries I have, let me use Lincoln's words:

I have great admiration for the Consitution and the men who were its framers, and who devoted so much time and energy to its construction. Also, the quest for virtue in government should not be so easliy cast off, as if to say, "well, it's always been like that," or "politics breeds corruption anyway, so why bother." Good government is worth fighting for, in both a figurative and literal sense. The pursuit of excellence in government - how it speaks to the ideals of fairness, equality and the notion that people can have a say in their own destinies - defines our "humanness" as much as any other set of virtues one would care to recite.

There are conservatives, moderates and liberals who believe with a passion that the Constitution is worth perserving and defending. For them there are larger loyalties than those of party allegiance. IMHO, it is a sad thing that the pursuit of power has become more important than the pursuit of virtue and excellence in government.

[ February 25, 2004, 00:12: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

Chandos...

I understand your idealistic concerns. I join with you in a fervent desire to preserve the Constitution as it was intended by our Founding Fathers (ummm, sorry, to be Politically Correct I should say "Founding People" ) .

Bear in mind that out of thousands of proposed ammendments to the Constitution, only 27 have been ratified. Whenever someone talks about a Constitutional Ammendment...they are usually blowing smoke! In fact the 27th ammendment took 203 years to be ratified! If that were to happen again, you wouldn't even be around when Arnie ran for President (Arnie would be because he has that Titanium skeleton thingy).

Off the subject...but anyone wonder what exactly goes on at the Shriver family reunions...one of the great Liberal names in American politics?

[edit] You should also be ashamed of yourself for such a subjective thread title