Is Arnold Schwarzeneger the next President?

Is it possible that the world's all time best bodybuilder,a novice politician and a man accissed of many misconducts to women becomes our next President? Quite possible huh? Especially when you look at the preparations that have already started amongst the Republicans.




www.blackcommentator.com/106/106_freedom_rider_arnold.html


What do you think? Is it REALLY possible?

Not all that possible. It is written that a US president must be born in USA. People in Arnold's own party have shown disgust with the very idea of changing the constitution on this subject. So barring a complete contitutional overhaul, it just won't happen.

AAC

I agree...but looks like an amendment in the constitution might just be round the corner. His supporters in the parliament have already proposed a bill that will enable a person residing in America for 20 years to run for the Presidential office. And the fact of the matter is Arnold would have spent exactly 20 years by that time.

It's impossible without a constitutional amendment. The founding fathers included the clause about the president being required to be American-born to prevent foreign powers from controlling the country. I seriously doubt that is going to change.

Originally posted by AryanWatch
but looks like an amendment in the constitution might just be round the corner.

bite your tongue!

NO amendment to the Constitution! It's fine the way it is. We have 300 million Americans in this country. I'm sure that the native born Americans are talented enough that we don't have to use foreign born.

The framers put that in the Constitution for a very good reason. It's a safety measure and considering the world of terrorism we have today ... it HAD BETTER STAY!!

posted by AnAbsoluteCreation

Not all that possible. It is written that a US president must be born in USA. People in Arnold's own party have shown disgust with the very idea of changing the constitution on this subject.

posted by AryanWatch

I agree, but it looks like an amendment to the constitution might just be round the corner. His supporters in the parliament [Congress] have already proposed a bill that will enable a person residing in America for 20 years to run for the Presidential office. And the fact of the matter is Arnold would have spent exactly 20 years by that time. [Edited by Don W]

US Con. Article II, Section 1, Clause 5: No person except a natural born citizen . . shall be eligible to the office of president . . shall have attained the age of 35 years and have been a resident 14 years within the United States.” This is the only elective office or appointed office requiring “natural born” citizenship. See my note below.

Paraphrasing Article I, Section 1, Clause 2 " . . members of the House must be age 25, 7 years a citizen and an inhabitant of the state from which chosen . . “ Article I, Section 2, Clause 3: Members of the Senate must be age 30, and 9 years a citizen and live in the state from which chosen . . “

But What IF?

What if Arnold Schwarzenegger ran anyway? What if he got the most votes in enough states that he would win in the electoral college? 270 votes. Would that not be equal to a constitutional amendment? If you were sitting on the Supreme Court, how would you rule? Would you say the will of the people does not count? That words written on a piece of paper over 200 years ago prevail over the will of say, 60 million people (voters) alive and well today?

Because of the cumbersome way our constitution is amendable, that is, it takes a 2/3rds vote in the House and also in the Senate - but not the signature of the president - and approval of 3/4ths of the states to become the law of the land, which the Congress may specify is to be by either conventions in the several states or by the state’s legislatures. We have always used the latter and never the former method.

Note: The US Con does not use gender specific pronouns in this instance. It uses the word "person" and not "he" or "she." Say Hello Hillary!

[edit on 5/10/2007 by donwhite]

Originally posted by donwhite
Would that not be equal to a constitutional amendment?

No.

If you were sitting on the Supreme Court, how would you rule?

There is nothing to rule about. He can't be president. Period.

It's against the law and even if he got all those votes - which he wouldn't.
That wouldn't change the Constitution.
That SHOULDN'T change the Constitution.

That section is there for our protection and it's needed as much today
as it was 225 years ago.

Democracy is all about People right? If we believe in this then I don't see Arnold's place of BIRTH as an important issue. Let me assure everyone that I'am not an Arnold The Presiden't fan in anyway. i believe in having well qualified democratic representatives and not the actors and clowns who happen to be popular due to their theaterics and want to spend their last days in the White House because they are pushed in to it by sychophants. A National Leader should be someone who can take that responsibility in a responsible and dignified manner. the point I'am trying to make is,if we are really a democratic nation,why do we see Arnold being a President as something as a threat. I think we need to introspect.

Could be fixed since elections and all the major events like war in Iraq are fixed too. It's all about producers and finances, so maybe next Arnold movie will be President of USA, at least 4 years of script reading, destroying freedom and hot air.

[edit on 10-5-2007 by detonator]

This seems to be an absurd assumption that Arnold could possibly be the next President of the US. Given the mixed emotions towards his governance, I highly doubt that anyone would waste their vote on him.

Sure Ronald Reagan was an actor and was very successful in his presidency, but Arnold is a totally different story.

If Arnold is President, then who is going to be his VP? Kanye West or Gary Colman.

The sheer idea of this is laughable

Originally posted by FlyersFan
NO amendment to the Constitution! It's fine the way it is. We have 300 million Americans in this country. I'm sure that the native born Americans are talented enough that we don't have to use foreign born.

except for the fact that we're all supposed to be citizens with equal rights.

The framers put that in the Constitution for a very good reason.

xenophobia?
oh, not that, the whole problem with foreign powers attempting to take control through attainment of office...
it was a good reason BACK THEN, in a time when many people in this country would've preferred being english with all the benefits of citizenship in the empire to the founding of an independent nation (which was the plan A for the founding fathers)

It's a safety measure and considering the world of terrorism we have today ... it HAD BETTER STAY!!

you're joking.. right? i doubt that founders of this country had the foresight to imagine anything about the world we live in today, let alone the laws that would be needed to govern it.

i was born in Malta, moved here at age 2 and have lived here ever since. i have my US citizenship. are you saying that i'm less of an american than anyone else? are you saying i'm less qualified?

your xenophobia disgusts me

Originally posted by AryanWatch
His supporters in the parliament..

The United States does not have a Parliament, as it's not a parliamentary democracy.

We have a bi-cameral Congress, comprised of the the House and Senate, who do not posses
the authority to elect the Executive or create laws by themselves.




Personally though, I believe that if you have lived here at least 15 years, and can get the
necessary votes, than you should be able to be the president, than again to, I disapprove of
the whole idea of the executive power invested in a single person.

[edit on 5/10/2007 by iori_komei]

To the best of my knowledge, the onlyl political office that the "foreign" born can not hold is President. No others are barred, though come to think on it, if you are in the immediate line of succession; VP, Speaker, etc... would being foriegn born prevent you from holding these offices? Hmmm... Stictly speaking, I suppose it would if you can't legally run for President, you certainly can't be constitutionally appointed, can you?

OK, all you expert constitutionalists out there, riddle me this little conundrum...

posted by seagull

To the best of my knowledge, the only political office that the "foreign" born can not hold is President . . though come to think on it, if you are in the immediate line of succession; VP, Speaker, etc . . would being foreign born prevent you from holding these offices? OK, you expert constitutionalists out there, riddle me this little conundrum [Edited by Don W]

You’ve made the easy hard. As for the VP, who is usually chosen after the presidential candidate at the national conventions, it is inconceivable why one who is ineligible to serve would be offered to the public. That would border on lunacy and certainly would not show the presidential candidate in a good light.

As for the others, the Speaker first, followed by the President Pro Tem of the Senate, if either was ineligible, he or she would be skipped over.

[edit on 5/11/2007 by donwhite]

Guys...we are in a democratic freeland. Anything is possible...For all you know...you might wake up one day and find our constitution amended and then Arny becomes the President.

DW. I really did think that was the way it would work. Just checkin' is all. Somehow I just knew it would be you, too . Thanks just the same.

Aryanwatch. It takes a whole lot to amend the Constitution...Gov. Schwartzenneger is in his 60's now, or at least close. By the time all the rigamoral it takes to amend the constitution, especially in such a fundemental way as this, he'll be long in the grave politically speaking. Too old.

Personally I would vote for him

But without a constitutional amendment he isn't a likely candidate because of his place of birth. I believe he was born in Austria, which automatically makes him ineligible. I think they should change it, but he is needed in California possibly more than in the United States. But you should also note that the last energetic, actor, Govenor of California who wasn't given a chance to be President was Ronald Reagan.

[edit on 11-5-2007 by Royal76]

Yes, amending the Constitution is a bit of an ordeal. < That's a good link for detailing what it requires, some proposed amendments, and a list of failed amendments.

Not going to happen any time soon. Although I personally believe it should, eventually. If the will of the people [don't laugh] is to elect a person that doesn't happen to have been born here, then why not? At this point, I'm all for expanding the talent pool.

posted by seagull

DW, I really did think that was the way it would work. Thanks . . A/W, it takes a lot to amend the Constitution . . Gov. Schwarzenegger is in his 60's . . By the time all the rigamarole it takes to amend the constitution, especially in such a fundamental way as this, he'll be long in the grave, politically speaking. Too old. [Edited by Don W]

Readers here should know I admire the Senate patriarch Robert Byrd of WVa, and like him I have a copy of the US Con always near at hand. See note below.

The US Con itself was offered to the 13 states on September 17, 1787, which is Constitution Day. Signed by George Washington, as President and Deputy from Virginia. President of the Constitutional Convention sans Rhode Island that first met on May 25, 1787. It was adopted by the requisite 9 states - see Article VII of the Con - on June 21, 1788. Rhode Island dragged its feet and did not come onboard until May 29, 1790, the last state to ratify. Only 10 states voted in the first National election; North Carolina, New York and Rhode Island being too late to adopt to get to vote.

The first 12 amendments were submitted to the states on September 25, 1789 and the first 10 - our Bill of Rights - were approved on December 15, 1791. The 11th Amendment OTOH, was submitted on April 7, 1794 but not approved until January 8, 1798. In contrast, the 12th Amendment which corrected the 1800 Electoral College miscue and cost Alexander Hamilton his life at the hands of a disappointed Aaron Burr, was submitted on December 8, 1803 and approved on September 25, 1804, the quickest of all the amendments. Next quickest to be added was Number XIII which abolished slavery. Submitted on January 31, 1865, and approved on December 18, 1865.

The grandest amendment of all - IMO - was Number XIV, submitted on June 14, 1866 and not ratified until July 28, 1868. Everyone should read Section 1, from time to time. Roe v. Wade rests on that section and was also the source of the once popular but now discarded controversy over when “life” begins. (At conception but personhood is at birth).

Approval of the XVII Amendment putting senators up for popular election rather than by selection in the state legislatures, came quickly, submitted on May 13, 1912, and approved on May 31, 1913. END of Con History 101.

The XXVII Amendment should not have been adopted as it was too long in the tooth - or “stale” - a legal term meaning “too old” - it having been submitted on September 25, 1789 and not approved until May 18, 1992! 202 years, 7 months and 23 days later. I assume it was more or less a joke played on the country by a mischievous National Archivist, the official in charge of making such decisions. A harmless amendment, much like No. 9 and No. 10, which are rhetorical. The 11th is arcane and the 25th, much too wordy.

Note: Claitor’s Law Books, P.O. Box 3333, Baton Rouge, LA 70821, “U.S. Congress, Constitution of the United States” 87 pages, quoted at $3.50 plus s&h. See also www.claitors.com/

[edit on 5/11/2007 by donwhite]

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
except for the fact that we're all supposed to be citizens with equal rights.

That's a red herring. When a person comes to this country and becomes a citizen of this country they KNOW (or their guardians know) that they will never be able to be president. And yet they decide to come here knowing that. They bought the package deal when they came here.

xenophobia?

No. Security.

you're joking.. right?

Not at all. I'm very serious.

i doubt that founders of this country had the foresight to imagine anything about the world we live in today, let alone the laws that would be needed to govern it.

Who are you to know what 'foresight' they had or didn't have? How do you know that they didn't foresee a security risk by allowing foreign born people to run this country. It doesn't matter what 'foresight' they had or didn't have - the law is a VERY GOOD one. It should stay. It is definately needed.

your xenophobia disgusts me

:shk: People who throw around the word 'xenophobia' when ever SECURITY issues are raised ... they disgust me.

BTW .. i dont' give a hoot if you are disgusted. That's YOUR problem.