Ahnold for president! who didn't see this coming?

[impostal22]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/22/elec04.prez.schwarzenegger.ap/index.html

[Restola]

I am 100% opposed to changing the rules.

Plus I wouldn't vote for him.

[CasingBill]

Originally posted by Restola
I am 100% opposed to changing the rules.

Plus I wouldn't vote for him.

A big 100% ditto..i don't care what party it helps!

[Zygote]

At the very least it could make elections more interesting.

Schwarzenegger v. ALF in 2008

[shartley]

[Will Wood]

I can understand not letting a russian born die hard communist run for president...

But I don't see the problem is the person has been americanized. I know nothing about Arnold, but I'm guessing he would suck as a president. However, if a person was simply born in another country, but spent their whole life in America, involved in politics throughout their carreer, and would make a good president.. why should we not let him run?

[Restola]

The Constitution
No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.

There is simply no compelling reason to amend that.

Sorry if it seems mean...

[Vendetta]

[shartley]

Originally posted by Vendetta
I find it awfully hypocritical that he wants two amendments, one to give immigrates equal rights, and one to take them away from homosexuals.

[Restola]

This is one issue where the "slippery slope" scenario really comes into play. As sam pointed out, at some point everyone will say "well thats just not right".

The pro-gay marriage people are always quick to judge the other side as hateful, or discriminatory. But the fact is they also have drawn a line somewhere, probably just past themselves, that has no logical basis except history and morals to back it up.

[Vendetta]

That slippery-slope arugument just plain silly. In today's society it won't happen, but lets say that our culture changes and we find multiple partern "marriges" ok. So what? Just because we find it repugnent today, does not mean we would 50 years from now. 50 years ago, many states had laws banning the "un-natural" union of blacks and whites. Does anyone expecpt the KKK still belive this?

How many years were women in this country not allowed to vote? They never had the right to begin with either. That made it right?

One possible solution is the make it "civil unions" for everyone. If you want to be "married", you go through a church of your choice. No more fly-by-night Vegas marriges.
This is the way it is done in many countries.

[shartley]

Originally posted by Vendetta
That slippery-slope arugument just plain silly. In today's society it won't happen, but lets say that our culture changes and we find multiple partern "marriges" ok. So what? Just because we find it repugnent today, does not mean we would 50 years from now. 50 years ago, many states had laws banning the "un-natural" union of blacks and whites. Does anyone expecpt the KKK still belive this?

How many years were women in this country not allowed to vote? They never had the right to begin with either. That made it right?

One possible solution is the make it "civil unions" for everyone. If you want to be "married", you go through a church of your choice. No more fly-by-night Vegas marriges.
This is the way it is done in many countries.

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by Vendetta
How many years were women in this country not allowed to vote? They never had the right to begin with either. That made it right?

Yet, they went and legally change the constitution to allow them to vote. They changed the law the right way. They did not have publicity seeking mayors flout the law and do what they FEEL is right rather then what was legal. Women didn't burst into voting booths and just vote! Whereas the G&L lobby is trying to force their wants onto the rest of us instead of doing it through the legislature as it should be done. I don't think VT has had much of a problem with their civil unions. That was done the right way. The people's elected representatives passed a law the people wanted.


As for Arnold, tough luck. He knew the Constitution when he became a citizen. Whether he feels it is right or wrong, it is constitutional.

[Vendetta]

Yet, they went and legally change the constitution to allow them to vote. They changed the law the right way. They did not have publicity seeking mayors flout the law and do what they FEEL is right rather then what was legal. Women didn't burst into voting booths and just vote!

[-=Squid=-]

I think that they should not change the consitution, but just allow arnold to run for president anyways. We can pretend he was born here, right?