Next Question
Mahalo is adding a tip to all questions that don't offer a tip.
M¢25 Funded By Mahalo ? |
July 07, 2009 02:28 PM
RSS
I'm not sure what is the big deal these days about where a person was born.
There are plenty of people nowadays that were born in one country, moved to another as a small child, and are for all intents and purposes are a native of the country they moved to. There are plenty of families in which an older child was born in one country, and their slightly younger siblings in another.
Are you going to tell those kids: "Your younger sister can run for President, but you're not American enough buddy"?
On the other hand, it's also enitrely possible for someone to be born in a country and raised like they lived somewhere else.
The basic idea of democracy is: Let the voters decide.
The voters can decide if Arnold Schwarzenegger is American enough, just as they can decide if he'd be a good President.
As for whether I'd ever vote for him given the opportunity....
It depends on the alternatives on offer. Personally I think global warming is the biggest issue facing humanity, and he's pretty good on that issue.
He's certainly not a top notch candidate, but then there haven't been that many of those.
Which is another reason not to limit the field unneccessarily. It's not as if there have been abundance of stellar candidates to pick and choose from in most electoral cycles.
Helpful Answer?
(5)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
Source(s):
personal opinion
Permalink | Report
That would require a radical change to Article Two Section One of the US Constitution.
Out of strong dissent to any change in the policy of only allowing natural born American citizens to become the President of the United States I would not vote for any candidate who was not a natural born American citizen.
I know Democracy is an experiment and one of the best aspects of the United States government is the fluidity of it but I could not endorse such a drastic change in policy to even allow a non-american born citizen to run for the Presidency let alone vote for that candidate if such a change was made.
http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/whuscons/18stat23.gif
Source(s):
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html
Tags: citizens, elections
Helpful Answer?
(3)
(0)
Permalink |
Report
However, right now, no, I would not vote for him.
One, I tend to disagree with his political philosophy. He's a Republican (albiet a socially liberal republican) and I definitely tend to lean more Democrat.
Even so, I just don't think he's done enough to show he's president-worthy material. He's admittedly done his best to handle the CA budget SNAFU. However, IMHO, a president needs to be a leader, to motivate and inspire and get people working together.
Gov Schwarzenegger has not been able to get people working together to solve the budget crisis, and it is costing the people of California dearly. There is certainly enough blame to go around to all legislators regardless of political party in California, but the buck stops, as they say, with the Governor.
Will the rule of "native-born Americans only" ever be repealed? I do not think so. Hard to say why exactly. First off, they may not have the same understanding of US politics, especially depending on how long they've lived here and at what age they came here.
Also, I think there are too many people who are, frankly, afraid of foriegners and foreign influence. Don't know if you were familiar with people who were freaked out because they believed Obama was not a natural-born US citizen (unfounded fears-he is) and worried about his abilities to lead as a result.
Also, it just kind of makes an internal sense that the head of America should be 100% American. It's hard for me to explain any other way.
I think, there is too much thinking like this to make it reasonable that a non-native American could run for President. Maybe that will change in the future, but I don't see it happening right now.
Permalink | Report
His policies, though I believe well meaning, have seriously hurt California. It seems like they're having to make more budget cuts to important things like education than any other state.
Also, this is the governor who sent California lawmakers steel bull testicles as a message to get tough in their decisions. Does he want them to make the tough decisions, or does he want to make them puke? The man is an ass.
Source(s):
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25659451-401,00.html
Permalink | Report
The clause about "natural born" is unclear and long past due to be dropped. Anyone who is capable of being elected ought to be eligible to be elected. Someone who was foreign and out of touch with Americans obviously wouldn't get many votes. Meanwhile perfectly acceptable candidates are being accused of being ineligible on a technicality. Goldwater was born in a territory. McCain was born in Panama, perhaps on a US base but perhaps not (why should it matter?). All sorts of weird theories were put forward about Obama. And on the other hand, it seems quite likely that one of our past presidents was actually born Canadian. None of this should be an issue.
And what about candidates who were born by c-section? That's not "natural born". That issue has not been raised politically but shows up in fiction.
It will be amended but I couldn't predict exactly when. It will be when a strong majority party has a candidate in mind that would otherwise be ineligible.
I might note that in my interpretation, based on careful reading of the Constitution, a candidate could run and be elected who was not a "natural born citizen". He or she would then be treated as an incapacitated President, with the Vice President effectively in office just as if the President were ill. This would create a constitutional crises which could get the amendment through in a hurry!
There was a minor party candidate who was not a "natural born citizen" in the last election but received very few votes. One would have to at least get an elector to bring the issue to court.
Another possibility for change is that the unpopular Electoral College may be amended away at some point, and the "natural born" clause might be cleaned out at the same time.
Permalink | Report
Permalink | Report
I remember in high school when the cheerleader tryouts would come up each year. The whole school would vote for who they wanted to be cheerleader. Do you know what happened? It became a popularity contest, not one based on skills or physical agility. That's all it was and that is sadly what has happened to our presidential elections as the general public becomes dumbed down. Don't get me wrong, I'm not totally unhappy about how the last election turned out, but until the general masses start wising up and relying on what's important (issues) and forget about what's not important, like fidelity in their marriage or where a person is born, it will continue to be nothing more than a popularity contest. Thank God our government is set up with checks and balances preventing the president from being an all powerful entity with absolute power or we would all have been screwed from the very beginning!
Permalink | Report
Permalink | Report
Permalink | Report
Answered Question
Mahalo is adding a tip to all questions that don't offer a tip.
If Arnold Schwarzenegger could run for President of the USA, would you vote for him?
Why? Or Why Not? Do you think the rules about having to be a US Born Citizen will be changed anytime soon, or ever?
Interesting Question?
Yes (6)
No (0)
Interesting: lesliec, lauriem, buddawiggi, carriep, someidiot, easyeboy
- In Society & Culture |
- |
- Report |
-
Share
RSS
Best Answer Chosen by Asker
| July 07, 2009 04:23 PM |
There are plenty of people nowadays that were born in one country, moved to another as a small child, and are for all intents and purposes are a native of the country they moved to. There are plenty of families in which an older child was born in one country, and their slightly younger siblings in another.
Are you going to tell those kids: "Your younger sister can run for President, but you're not American enough buddy"?
On the other hand, it's also enitrely possible for someone to be born in a country and raised like they lived somewhere else.
The basic idea of democracy is: Let the voters decide.
The voters can decide if Arnold Schwarzenegger is American enough, just as they can decide if he'd be a good President.
As for whether I'd ever vote for him given the opportunity....
It depends on the alternatives on offer. Personally I think global warming is the biggest issue facing humanity, and he's pretty good on that issue.
He's certainly not a top notch candidate, but then there haven't been that many of those.
Which is another reason not to limit the field unneccessarily. It's not as if there have been abundance of stellar candidates to pick and choose from in most electoral cycles.
| Asker's Rating: |
• thanks! excellent and very thorough details! thank you!
Helpful Answer?
(5)
(0)
Helpful: albanian, stanar, bunnyphuphu, krysstel, metalsand
Tip philipy for this answer
Reply
Other Answers (21)
July 07, 2009 02:55 PM
No I dont think I would. I know the situation in California is not entirely his fault but a lot of his policies are to blame. We, as a country, are already in a big enough mess as it is. I would hate to see what he would do with our collective problems.
Source(s):
personal opinion
Permalink | Report
Reply
July 07, 2009 03:36 PM
I would not. That would require a radical change to Article Two Section One of the US Constitution.
Out of strong dissent to any change in the policy of only allowing natural born American citizens to become the President of the United States I would not vote for any candidate who was not a natural born American citizen.
I know Democracy is an experiment and one of the best aspects of the United States government is the fluidity of it but I could not endorse such a drastic change in policy to even allow a non-american born citizen to run for the Presidency let alone vote for that candidate if such a change was made.
Source(s):
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html
Tags: citizens, elections
Helpful Answer?
(3)
(0)
Helpful: krysstel, bbrookin, defolts
Tip buddawiggi for this answer
Reply
July 07, 2009 03:39 PM
I reserve the right to change my mind if he ever was a candidate and, as a nation, we got a better idea of his positions and experience. However, right now, no, I would not vote for him.
One, I tend to disagree with his political philosophy. He's a Republican (albiet a socially liberal republican) and I definitely tend to lean more Democrat.
Even so, I just don't think he's done enough to show he's president-worthy material. He's admittedly done his best to handle the CA budget SNAFU. However, IMHO, a president needs to be a leader, to motivate and inspire and get people working together.
Gov Schwarzenegger has not been able to get people working together to solve the budget crisis, and it is costing the people of California dearly. There is certainly enough blame to go around to all legislators regardless of political party in California, but the buck stops, as they say, with the Governor.
Will the rule of "native-born Americans only" ever be repealed? I do not think so. Hard to say why exactly. First off, they may not have the same understanding of US politics, especially depending on how long they've lived here and at what age they came here.
Also, I think there are too many people who are, frankly, afraid of foriegners and foreign influence. Don't know if you were familiar with people who were freaked out because they believed Obama was not a natural-born US citizen (unfounded fears-he is) and worried about his abilities to lead as a result.
Also, it just kind of makes an internal sense that the head of America should be 100% American. It's hard for me to explain any other way.
I think, there is too much thinking like this to make it reasonable that a non-native American could run for President. Maybe that will change in the future, but I don't see it happening right now.
Permalink | Report
Reply
July 07, 2009 04:42 PM
People said the same things about Catholics, women and blacks in the past.
The fact is people might have been nervous about those things but when faced with an actual choice and an excellent candidate in front of them, they were perfectly willing to vote for them.
And that is the key - why should someone that people would vote for be disqualified? And if they weren't going to get enough votes anyway, why bother to disqualify them?
How can someone be American enough to be a Governor, but not enough to even be allowed to run for President?
Report
The fact is people might have been nervous about those things but when faced with an actual choice and an excellent candidate in front of them, they were perfectly willing to vote for them.
And that is the key - why should someone that people would vote for be disqualified? And if they weren't going to get enough votes anyway, why bother to disqualify them?
How can someone be American enough to be a Governor, but not enough to even be allowed to run for President?
July 07, 2009 04:17 PM
I most emphatically would not vote for Schwarzenegger. I didn't vote for him when he ran for governor, either. His policies, though I believe well meaning, have seriously hurt California. It seems like they're having to make more budget cuts to important things like education than any other state.
Also, this is the governor who sent California lawmakers steel bull testicles as a message to get tough in their decisions. Does he want them to make the tough decisions, or does he want to make them puke? The man is an ass.
Source(s):
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25659451-401,00.html
Permalink | Report
Reply
July 07, 2009 04:24 PM
Of course it depends upon who was running; but, I would definitely consider him and think he is the best leading Republican. I know that doesn't say much; but, for example, if a very conservative Democrat got that party's nomination I would certainly prefer Schwarzenegger who is very pro-environment. The clause about "natural born" is unclear and long past due to be dropped. Anyone who is capable of being elected ought to be eligible to be elected. Someone who was foreign and out of touch with Americans obviously wouldn't get many votes. Meanwhile perfectly acceptable candidates are being accused of being ineligible on a technicality. Goldwater was born in a territory. McCain was born in Panama, perhaps on a US base but perhaps not (why should it matter?). All sorts of weird theories were put forward about Obama. And on the other hand, it seems quite likely that one of our past presidents was actually born Canadian. None of this should be an issue.
And what about candidates who were born by c-section? That's not "natural born". That issue has not been raised politically but shows up in fiction.
It will be amended but I couldn't predict exactly when. It will be when a strong majority party has a candidate in mind that would otherwise be ineligible.
I might note that in my interpretation, based on careful reading of the Constitution, a candidate could run and be elected who was not a "natural born citizen". He or she would then be treated as an incapacitated President, with the Vice President effectively in office just as if the President were ill. This would create a constitutional crises which could get the amendment through in a hurry!
There was a minor party candidate who was not a "natural born citizen" in the last election but received very few votes. One would have to at least get an elector to bring the issue to court.
Another possibility for change is that the unpopular Electoral College may be amended away at some point, and the "natural born" clause might be cleaned out at the same time.
Permalink | Report
Reply
July 07, 2009 05:23 PM
Only in a crazy world would an ex-bodybuilding, bad acting immigrant be voted mayor of a corrupt town and now president??? I'm not saying he's a bad person or whatever, i don't know the guy, but i think you guys should consider nominating Jackie Chan instead.
Permalink | Report
Reply
July 07, 2009 08:07 PM
Reading all these responses has brought me to an epiphany. Whether a person is born in the US or not is really inconsequential, as I have seen more patriotic and well-meaning foreigners than natural born citizens. When a normal person goes out to apply for a normal job, what are the qualifications for having that job? Being a movie star? I think not! A person being hired for a regular job lies on many factors, including but not limited to, work experience in that field, employment history (work ethic, ever been fired?), education, and skills. I remember in high school when the cheerleader tryouts would come up each year. The whole school would vote for who they wanted to be cheerleader. Do you know what happened? It became a popularity contest, not one based on skills or physical agility. That's all it was and that is sadly what has happened to our presidential elections as the general public becomes dumbed down. Don't get me wrong, I'm not totally unhappy about how the last election turned out, but until the general masses start wising up and relying on what's important (issues) and forget about what's not important, like fidelity in their marriage or where a person is born, it will continue to be nothing more than a popularity contest. Thank God our government is set up with checks and balances preventing the president from being an all powerful entity with absolute power or we would all have been screwed from the very beginning!
Permalink | Report
Reply
July 08, 2009 12:27 AM
In the past I would have but not now. When I was in junior high I read his book Arnold the education of a Bodybuilder and I wanted to be like that and got close a couple of times but, I live in southern California and follow politics closely and I don’t think he is being honest when it comes to the states problems, I voted for him during the recall and then when ran for reelection but now the situation is the conservatives cannot stand anyone that is not rich and want to cut everything, oh they cry about the unions and illegal’s but they wont go after businesses that hire illegal’s, they wanted prisons and new laws but did not want to pay for them. You would think the people that hate government would move to a country like Somalia where they have very little government and no social safety net. It seems that the people that are conservative are really anarchists, these people can piss and moan about how much the budget went up but they cannot tell you where states like Texas get their money from,( high property taxes, oil extraction fees, and sales taxes on things that California does not tax) I see this states slipping, I see the business lobby making miserable for everyone else to live. They will tell you that they don’t owe you a living, I say we don’t owe them a safe country with a relatively stable government, let them go to one of those corrupt 3rd world countries where they have to pay bribes and get unreliable workers. And strikes that last forever. Now I would vote for him over Sarah Palin.
Permalink | Report
Reply
July 08, 2009 08:29 AM
No, I wouldn't. First off he can't run because he was not born in the US. While I like him, I don't think he has done a good job recently with the budget crisis in California, while it is not entirely his fault, he did not put his foot down on spending before and now they are paying the price. We need someone more fiscally conservative to pull us out of this mess.
Permalink | Report
Reply
Reply
Answer this Question
Related Questions
Ask a Question
Buy Mahalo Dollars with Credit Card or PayPal
Top Members
Most Popular Tags
Categories
- Anonymous
-
Arts & Design
-
Beauty & Style
-
Books & Authors
-
Business
-
Cars & Transportation
-
Consumer Electronics
- Coupons Deals
-
Education
-
Entertainment
-
Environment
-
Fitness
-
Food & Drink
- From Email
- From Iphone
- From Twitter
-
Health
-
History
-
Hobbies
-
Home & Garden
-
How Tos
-
Humor
-
Jobs
-
Legal
-
Local
-
Love & Relationships
-
Mahalo Answers Community
-
Money
-
Music
-
News
-
NSFW
-
Parenting
-
Pets
-
Science & Mathematics
-
Services
-
Shopping
-
Social Science
-
Society & Culture
-
Sports
-
Technology & Internet
-
Travel
-
Video Games
Welcome New Members
- kenmarkprejula, December 17, 2009 11:11 AM
- micahkim, December 17, 2009 11:10 AM
- subhanazaki, December 17, 2009 11:09 AM
- muhammadzahid, December 17, 2009 11:06 AM
- lezly, December 17, 2009 11:01 AM
Mahalo Dollars are the currency of Mahalo Answers.
Each Mahalo Dollar costs $1.
Once you earn more than 40 Mahalo Dollars, you can request to be paid via PayPal. Each Mahalo Dollar is currently worth $0.75 when paid out via PayPal. Learn More
And looking at another angle, do you realize that a child born on US soil to foreign tourists, even if raised and living most of his life abroad, would be eligible after 14 years residence (not even necessarily consecutive)?