Would you consider an amendment to allow Arnold to run for president?

[CyranoJones]

Originally posted by Elwood Blues
While that may be true, the US didn't exist in 1732.

And while that may be true, I'm not sure how one would emigrate to the place one lives. Does that make every person born in the colonies prior to the formation of the US an immigrant? Not according to my definition, but semantics are fun.

 

[Elwood Blues]

Originally posted by Doug123
Good point.

The point was what?

Bill was elected president and was a known womanizer regardless.

 

[Abracadabra]

Originally posted by Elwood Blues
The point was what?

Bill was elected president and was a known womanizer regardless.

The point is hypocrisy. One womanizer is demonized by Republicans while another is practically worshipped as a hero. Now there is talk of amending the U.S. Constitution to allow Arnold to run for president.

 

[Pin Wizard]

No

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=115703&tocid=0&query=george washington&ct=

Washington, George
Encyclopædia Britannica Article

George Washington
born February 22 [February 11, Old Style], 1732, Westmoreland county, Virginia [U.S.]
died December 14, 1799, Mount Vernon

byname Father of His Country American general and commander in chief of the colonial armies in the American Revolution (1775–83) and subsequently first president of the United States (1789–97).

Washington's father, Augustine Washington, had gone to school in England, had tasted seafaring life, and then settled down to manage…

 

[Elwood Blues]

Originally posted by CyranoJones
And while that may be true, I'm not sure how one would emigrate to the place one lives. Does that make every person born in the colonies prior to the formation of the US an immigrant? Not according to my definition, but semantics are fun.

Ooo Boy!! A semantics game!!!

I believe they were still English subjects (or whatever country they came from under English rule) and they automatically became citizens of the newly formed US and as were those born on our soil from then on.

If someone is born in Antarctica, what does that make them?

 

[Dan Murphy]

No

 

[Elwood Blues]

Originally posted by Abracadabra
The point is hypocrisy. One womanizer is demonized by Republicans while another is practically worshipped as a hero. Now there is talk of amending the U.S. Constitution to allow Arnold to run for president.

If I'm not mistaken, BC was a self admitted womanizer while AS was only accused. Or do I have it wrong?

 

[Pin Wizard]

Originally posted by Elwood Blues
While that may be true, the US didn't exist in 1732.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm... Good point!

 

[disney4us2002]

Was Arnold accused of womanizing since being married? I remember the woman who claimed he made unwanted advances way back when but not anything more recently. I don't believe that warrants a comparison to the likes of Clinton who had such disregard for both his marriage and the presidency that he conducted presidential phone calls with his pants around his ankles.

As for the amendment, I'm on the fence. Not necessarily because of Arnold, but in general. Is someone born in the US any more devoted than someone who actually has to want it, get here, study, take a test and then devote said number of years (25 was suggested) to proving s/he is an "American"?

What is involved in amending the Constitution? Doesn't there have to be a legal argument that something is unjust?

 

[Abracadabra]

Originally posted by Elwood Blues
If I'm not mistaken, BC was a self admitted womanizer while AS was only accused. Or do I have it wrong?

Nice attempt at a diversion, EB. I do believe Arnold admitted to treating women inappropriately in the past, but what does this have to do with the basic issue here: hypocrisy.

Why revile one person who happens to be a Democrat and salute/praise another who happens to be a Republican when they've both done essentially the same thing?

 

[browneyes]

Would you consider an amendment to allow Arnold to run for president?

No.

 

[Pembo]

After seeing him in that movie where he is pregnant, I don't thing I could take him seriously!

 

[DawnCt1]

Originally posted by CyranoJones
George Washington was born on February 22, 1732, in Westmoreland County, Virginia.

A British colony at the time.

 

[Abracadabra]

Originally posted by DawnCt1
A British colony at the time.

If he was born in this country, regardless of what it's status was at the time, how could he then be an immigrant? An immigrant is defined as a person who comes to a country to take up permanent residence. G. Washington was born here.

 

[DawnCt1]

Originally posted by debster812
I personally don't think the Constitution should be ammended based on one speech at a National Convention.

And, since I do not live in California, I do not know enough about how Govenor Schwarzenegger is conducting himself and running his state and therefore would not vote to allow him (and then anyone else of foreign birth) to become President of the USA.

With a 65% approval rating in jaded Caleeforneeaa, Arnold is getting gthe job done.

 

[sha_lyn]

As for the amendment, I'm on the fence. Not necessarily because of Arnold, but in general. Is someone born in the US any more devoted than someone who actually has to want it, get here, study, take a test and then devote said number of years (25 was suggested) to proving s/he is an "American"?

I'm on the fence on this issue too, actually have been for a fews yrs. I can't remember exactly who it was (powell manybe?) that there was some speculation (in the media) that they couldn't run if they wanted to because they were born in a US teritory and not a state. Then the discussion turn to children of US military servicemen stationed over seas. What if for some reason the child wasn't born on base. I know my aunt and uncle had to file for citizenship for my cousin because she was born in hospital in Spain, and not on base where my uncle was stationed. then again that was back in 1967, so things might have changed since then.

 

[JessetheCowgirl]

No!

 

[debster812]

Originally posted by DawnCt1
With a 65% approval rating in jaded Caleeforneeaa, Arnold is getting gthe job done.

Is he getting the job done, or are the 'jaded Californians' just so fed up with his predecessor that he looks great by comparison?

And, where do you find out what his approval rating is? I would actually be interested in seeing if I can find out more about the man.

 

[jrydberg]

Nope. Leave the Constitution as is.

 

[sha_lyn]

Originally posted by jrydberg
Nope. Leave the Constitution as is.

Well I could see that argument is the constitution had never been amended, but it has been numerous time. It hasn't been "as it was" since the founders added the bill or rights.