Political Crossfire Forums

[Quicksurf]

sunwook wrote: So people younger than 50 can't be pres?

No people younger than 35 cannot be president.

[Publius2006]

sunwook wrote: So people younger than 50 can't be pres?

If an amendment such as this were to pass, then a foreign born person would have to be at least fifty at the bare minimum. Natural born citizens could be thirty-five.

[Jirwin]

Richard Owl Mirror wrote: John Galt wrote: Wyatt Earp wrote: I don't get something.
If some one who was born in the USA can become President when he/she turn's 35.
Why can't some one who became a USA citizen 35 years ago become president?
What's the difference? what are they going to be some super sleeper Commie spy who was underground for 35 years?
If my history comes to me correctly, Andrew Jackson parents were from Ireland and he just happened to be born in the USA. I mean He was conceived in Ireland.

It is because that a person who grew up for however long in another country will probabbly remember that country with a certian bias and that bias is not good for the President to have. The American People and ONLY the American People are the people who should be on the mind of the President. Everything else comes after.



Governor Granholm emigrated to the United States at age 4 with her parents from Canada.

Granholm was born in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada in 1959, and her family moved to California when she was four.

In 1980, she became a United States citizen.

Should She be viewed as harboring a corruptable Canadian influence?

Seeing as how Michigan is one of the worst states to work in, with unemployment that reaches close to Canadian levels. She should be removed from Govern-ship let alone allowed to run for the highest office of this country.

The Constitution is fine as it is, leave it be. I realize that the democrats have a hard time winning in elections. Do you really think they will fair better if you nominated true blue blooded Socialists as their candidates?

[Richard Owl Mirror]

Jirwin wrote: Richard Owl Mirror wrote: John Galt wrote: Wyatt Earp wrote: I don't get something.
If some one who was born in the USA can become President when he/she turn's 35.
Why can't some one who became a USA citizen 35 years ago become president?
What's the difference? what are they going to be some super sleeper Commie spy who was underground for 35 years?
If my history comes to me correctly, Andrew Jackson parents were from Ireland and he just happened to be born in the USA. I mean He was conceived in Ireland.

It is because that a person who grew up for however long in another country will probabbly remember that country with a certian bias and that bias is not good for the President to have. The American People and ONLY the American People are the people who should be on the mind of the President. Everything else comes after.



Governor Granholm emigrated to the United States at age 4 with her parents from Canada.

Granholm was born in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada in 1959, and her family moved to California when she was four.

In 1980, she became a United States citizen.

Should She be viewed as harboring a corruptable Canadian influence?

Seeing as how Michigan is one of the worst states to work in, with unemployment that reaches close to Canadian levels. She should be removed from Govern-ship let alone allowed to run for the highest office of this country.

The Constitution is fine as it is, leave it be. I realize that the democrats have a hard time winning in elections. Do you really think they will fair better if you nominated true blue blooded Socialists as their candidates?

1.) Are you a Resident of Michigan? Do you have facts to back up your claim?

2.) What does " true blue blooded Socialists" have to do with Democrats?

[Jirwin]

Richard Owl Mirror wrote: Jirwin wrote: Richard Owl Mirror wrote: John Galt wrote: Wyatt Earp wrote: I don't get something.
If some one who was born in the USA can become President when he/she turn's 35.
Why can't some one who became a USA citizen 35 years ago become president?
What's the difference? what are they going to be some super sleeper Commie spy who was underground for 35 years?
If my history comes to me correctly, Andrew Jackson parents were from Ireland and he just happened to be born in the USA. I mean He was conceived in Ireland.

It is because that a person who grew up for however long in another country will probabbly remember that country with a certian bias and that bias is not good for the President to have. The American People and ONLY the American People are the people who should be on the mind of the President. Everything else comes after.



Governor Granholm emigrated to the United States at age 4 with her parents from Canada.

Granholm was born in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada in 1959, and her family moved to California when she was four.

In 1980, she became a United States citizen.

Should She be viewed as harboring a corruptable Canadian influence?

Seeing as how Michigan is one of the worst states to work in, with unemployment that reaches close to Canadian levels. She should be removed from Govern-ship let alone allowed to run for the highest office of this country.

The Constitution is fine as it is, leave it be. I realize that the democrats have a hard time winning in elections. Do you really think they will fair better if you nominated true blue blooded Socialists as their candidates?

1.) Are you a Resident of Michigan? Do you have facts to back up your claim?

2.) What does " true blue blooded Socialists" have to do with Democrats?

1) Yes I am a resident of Michigan, Michigan unemployment rate at this moment is around 7.1% (as of April 2006), Canada is hanging around 8% as of 2005 haven't been able to get 2006 stats for Canada, not sure when the release that data. To my knowledge, family that lives in Canada, the Country has not had much increase in jobs or economy. Michigan is a s**t hole right now all because this woman doesn't know what the hell she is doing.

2) Because she is registered with the Democrat Party duh? Really you should put more thought into your questions.

She is a Canadian socialist that has destroyed this state in the 6 years. I was happy when she won, I figured no one could be as bad as the last guy we had, a Republican, He buried the state in debt, at least we had jobs even if spending was out of hand.

But damn was I wrong! The unemployment rate kept climbing, businesses kept leaving with every new tax she put on them. Failure to do away with the SBT really killed Businesses here as many had to pay the state regardless if they made any profit. Thankfully the Congress had the brains to end it recently there maybe hope that we can turn the state around. Not that she helped at all with that.

That my friend is the definition of a True Blue Socialist. Kill the companies then complain because they decide they do not want to stay in your state due to hostile conditions towards business. I myself have thought of leaving but my whole family is here and my kids would miss their aunts, uncles and Grandma/Grandpa. Although that is subject to change.

She put a Sin tax on tobacco and alcohol, she cut funding to education, She basically gutted the state and then has the audacity to try and pass the buck on to the Federal Government. The governor is responsible for the state, they have more control over what goes on there than anyone else. She has failed in this and I doubt the Unions will support her. The Union bosses will, but the rank and file more than likely will not. I know; I have friends and family that work in all the big three here. Every single party I have attended this summer with these people, with an average of 100-200 people in attendance, all complained about this woman. If these parties are any indication of how it will go in November this woman will be out and shipped back to Canada. Hopefully we can pull it back together otherwise I will pack up my family, my business and I will leave this state behind.

So yes I know about this woman and her ideas she will not make a good president and thankfully she can not run.

[Richard Owl Mirror]

Jirwin wrote: Richard Owl Mirror wrote: Jirwin wrote: Richard Owl Mirror wrote: John Galt wrote: Wyatt Earp wrote: I don't get something.
If some one who was born in the USA can become President when he/she turn's 35.
Why can't some one who became a USA citizen 35 years ago become president?
What's the difference? what are they going to be some super sleeper Commie spy who was underground for 35 years?
If my history comes to me correctly, Andrew Jackson parents were from Ireland and he just happened to be born in the USA. I mean He was conceived in Ireland.

It is because that a person who grew up for however long in another country will probabbly remember that country with a certian bias and that bias is not good for the President to have. The American People and ONLY the American People are the people who should be on the mind of the President. Everything else comes after.



Governor Granholm emigrated to the United States at age 4 with her parents from Canada.

Granholm was born in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada in 1959, and her family moved to California when she was four.

In 1980, she became a United States citizen.

Should She be viewed as harboring a corruptable Canadian influence?

Seeing as how Michigan is one of the worst states to work in, with unemployment that reaches close to Canadian levels. She should be removed from Govern-ship let alone allowed to run for the highest office of this country.

The Constitution is fine as it is, leave it be. I realize that the democrats have a hard time winning in elections. Do you really think they will fair better if you nominated true blue blooded Socialists as their candidates?

1.) Are you a Resident of Michigan? Do you have facts to back up your claim?

2.) What does " true blue blooded Socialists" have to do with Democrats?

1) Yes I am a resident of Michigan, Michigan unemployment rate at this moment is around 7.1% (as of April 2006), Canada is hanging around 8% as of 2005 haven't been able to get 2006 stats for Canada, not sure when the release that data. To my knowledge, family that lives in Canada, the Country has not had much increase in jobs or economy. Michigan is a s**t hole right now all because this woman doesn't know what the hell she is doing.

2) Because she is registered with the Democrat Party duh? Really you should put more thought into your questions.

She is a Canadian socialist that has destroyed this state in the 6 years. I was happy when she won, I figured no one could be as bad as the last guy we had, a Republican, He buried the state in debt, at least we had jobs even if spending was out of hand.

But damn was I wrong! The unemployment rate kept climbing, businesses kept leaving with every new tax she put on them. Failure to do away with the SBT really killed Businesses here as many had to pay the state regardless if they made any profit. Thankfully the Congress had the brains to end it recently there maybe hope that we can turn the state around. Not that she helped at all with that.

That my friend is the definition of a True Blue Socialist. Kill the companies then complain because they decide they do not want to stay in your state due to hostile conditions towards business. I myself have thought of leaving but my whole family is here and my kids would miss their aunts, uncles and Grandma/Grandpa. Although that is subject to change.

She put a Sin tax on tobacco and alcohol, she cut funding to education, She basically gutted the state and then has the audacity to try and pass the buck on to the Federal Government. The governor is responsible for the state, they have more control over what goes on there than anyone else. She has failed in this and I doubt the Unions will support her. The Union bosses will, but the rank and file more than likely will not. I know; I have friends and family that work in all the big three here. Every single party I have attended this summer with these people, with an average of 100-200 people in attendance, all complained about this woman. If these parties are any indication of how it will go in November this woman will be out and shipped back to Canada. Hopefully we can pull it back together otherwise I will pack up my family, my business and I will leave this state behind.

So yes I know about this woman and her ideas she will not make a good president and thankfully she can not run.

I wrote my response at the LINK below so that this thread does not continue going OFF TOPIC.
Retort: Blaming someone for things out of their control

AMENDED with updated information

Ford slashes production
Automaker to have 10 plants idled for significant periods during the rest of the year as it cuts fourth quarter output 21% from year-ago levels.
Quote: "We know this decision will have a dramatic impact on our employees, as well as our suppliers," said a statement from Chairman and CEO Bill Ford. "This is, however, the right call for our customers, our dealers and our long-term future."

How can any Governor have an effective impact on this type of action?

[Richard Owl Mirror]

I would like to bring this thread back ON TOPIC.
The proposal below DOES NOT have any one individual in mind.
It is NOT an attempt to bring about change on behalf of any one candidate so, please let us discuss the merits of the proposal without going OFF TOPIC with Individuals whom you may not agree with their policies.

The MAIN THRUST of the proposal is that an American Citizen who has lived in this Country for 50 years or more should (IMHO) have the same right to run for the highest office in our land as any natural-born citizen.
I firmly believe that a citizen who has been loyal and a citizen in good standing for that length of time should not have their loyalty questioned.

Richard Owl Mirror wrote: A Constitutional amendment which is justified - Article II ~ Section 1 - The President

"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."

Should be changed to read:

"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, a naturalized citizen, Fifty Years a Resident within the United States, 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."

The phrase of: "at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution" has been rendered mute over the course of time.
The phrase of: "and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States" would be rendered mute for a naturalized citizen.
I believe it should remain in force to secure the intent behind the restriction, which is to elect a person who resides on Our Soil.

Our Nation is missing out due to this clause in Our Constitution, removing active participation from Qualified,
Patriotic Citizens who otherwise qualify for the Presidency and Vice-Presidency.

One case in point is Madeleine Albright, former Ambassador to the UN and Secretary of State of these United States.
Madeleine Korbel Albright (born Marie Jana Korbelová on May 15, 1937) in Prague, Czechoslovakia
She became a U.S. citizen in 1957

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madeline_Albright
Ref: For Albright and Rice, Josef Korbel Is Tie that Binds
http://secretary.state.gov/www/albright/albright.html
http://www.nwhp.org/tlp/biographies/albright/albright_bio.html
http://www.globalleadersevents.com/event-speakers/Madeleine-Albright.cfm

Now, regardless of your personal/political view on my example above,
I would like to ask that we remain focused on the main topic of this topic.
Sending to the Senate, a Bill seeking a Constitutional amendment which shall replace the phrase:
"at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution" with the phrase: "a naturalized citizen, Fifty Years a Resident within the United States"

I believe Our Democracy is Mature enough and resilient enough for this change to Our Constitution, for all Our futures.

[Jirwin]

Quote: I wrote my response at the LINK below so that this thread does not continue going OFF TOPIC.
Retort: Blaming someone for things out of their control

AMENDED with updated information

Ford slashes production
Automaker to have 10 plants idled for significant periods during the rest of the year as it cuts fourth quarter output 21% from year-ago levels.
Quote: "We know this decision will have a dramatic impact on our employees, as well as our suppliers," said a statement from Chairman and CEO Bill Ford. "This is, however, the right call for our customers, our dealers and our long-term future."

How can any Governor have an effective impact on this type of action?

How can any President have an effective impact on this same type of action? Seems you are willing to hold one more accountable when the other has direct control over how their state is ran.

You brought up her as possible reason for your admendment, I state and I hope others can see that your proposed admendment is nothing but harmful to this country.

As the saying goes, if it isn't broke, don't fix it.

[Richard Owl Mirror]

Jirwin wrote: Quote: I wrote my response at the LINK below so that this thread does not continue going OFF TOPIC.
Retort: Blaming someone for things out of their control

AMENDED with updated information

Ford slashes production
Automaker to have 10 plants idled for significant periods during the rest of the year as it cuts fourth quarter output 21% from year-ago levels.
Quote: "We know this decision will have a dramatic impact on our employees, as well as our suppliers," said a statement from Chairman and CEO Bill Ford. "This is, however, the right call for our customers, our dealers and our long-term future."

How can any Governor have an effective impact on this type of action?

How can any President have an effective impact on this same type of action? Seems you are willing to hold one more accountable when the other has direct control over how their state is ran.

You brought up her as possible reason for your amendment, I state and I hope others can see that your proposed amendment is nothing but harmful to this country.

As the saying goes, if it isn't broke, don't fix it.

Woven throughout your responses are political, partisan poison darts of which I'm appalled.
No where in my proposal did I indicate I held/hold the President libel for the Economy of the nation so,
why bring that rhetoric into the conversation?

My proposal is Bi-partisan yet you've attacked my nature and branded me the enemy.

Perhaps that points out a flaw in your personality?

[Jirwin]

Richard Owl Mirror wrote: Jirwin wrote: Quote: I wrote my response at the LINK below so that this thread does not continue going OFF TOPIC.
Retort: Blaming someone for things out of their control

AMENDED with updated information

Ford slashes production
Automaker to have 10 plants idled for significant periods during the rest of the year as it cuts fourth quarter output 21% from year-ago levels.
Quote: "We know this decision will have a dramatic impact on our employees, as well as our suppliers," said a statement from Chairman and CEO Bill Ford. "This is, however, the right call for our customers, our dealers and our long-term future."

How can any Governor have an effective impact on this type of action?

How can any President have an effective impact on this same type of action? Seems you are willing to hold one more accountable when the other has direct control over how their state is ran.

You brought up her as possible reason for your amendment, I state and I hope others can see that your proposed amendment is nothing but harmful to this country.

As the saying goes, if it isn't broke, don't fix it.

Woven throughout your responses are political, partisan poison darts of which I'm appalled.
No where in my proposal did I indicate I held/hold the President libel for the Economy of the nation so,
why bring that rhetoric into the conversation?

My proposal is Bi-partisan yet you've attacked my nature and branded me the enemy.

Perhaps that points out a flaw in your personality?

By wishing to allow those with other ties to foriegn countries to run for President. thiis very harmful to the constitution. If the founding fathers wished for that to be the case they would have said so from the beginning. I didn't brand you an enemy, your idea is harmful to this country yes, you are misguided I feel but not an enemy I reserve that for those that wish to destroy it completely not simple change an amendment.

My response in not nearly partisan enough, You happened to name one person you felt would be a good President. I happened to vehemently disagree and I would rather see her pack her bags and head back to Canada than spend another day in this beautiful country. You interjected that a Governor does not have the power to make companies do what that Governor wanted. I just asked the next logical question, and that is "Does the President have any more control?" You take it as poison, most people that support the Democrat party feel the same when I tell them how wrong they are in supporting this amendment. It is funny they too do not want to see Arnold as President, and even try to make their amendment so that he is unable to run. Just as you did, so who is being Partisan here? Especially seeing as I am so against this that I do not care at all who is or will be able to run for President.

[Richard Owl Mirror]

Jirwin wrote: Richard Owl Mirror wrote: Jirwin wrote: Quote: I wrote my response at the LINK below so that this thread does not continue going OFF TOPIC.
Retort: Blaming someone for things out of their control

AMENDED with updated information

Ford slashes production
Automaker to have 10 plants idled for significant periods during the rest of the year as it cuts fourth quarter output 21% from year-ago levels.
Quote: "We know this decision will have a dramatic impact on our employees, as well as our suppliers," said a statement from Chairman and CEO Bill Ford. "This is, however, the right call for our customers, our dealers and our long-term future."

How can any Governor have an effective impact on this type of action?

How can any President have an effective impact on this same type of action? Seems you are willing to hold one more accountable when the other has direct control over how their state is ran.

You brought up her as possible reason for your amendment, I state and I hope others can see that your proposed amendment is nothing but harmful to this country.

As the saying goes, if it isn't broke, don't fix it.

Woven throughout your responses are political, partisan poison darts of which I'm appalled.
No where in my proposal did I indicate I held/hold the President libel for the Economy of the nation so,
why bring that rhetoric into the conversation?

My proposal is Bi-partisan yet you've attacked my nature and branded me the enemy.

Perhaps that points out a flaw in your personality?

By wishing to allow those with other ties to foriegn countries to run for President. thiis very harmful to the constitution. If the founding fathers wished for that to be the case they would have said so from the beginning. I didn't brand you an enemy, your idea is harmful to this country yes, you are misguided I feel but not an enemy I reserve that for those that wish to destroy it completely not simple change an amendment.

My response in not nearly partisan enough, You happened to name one person you felt would be a good President. I happened to vehemently disagree and I would rather see her pack her bags and head back to Canada than spend another day in this beautiful country. You interjected that a Governor does not have the power to make companies do what that Governor wanted. I just asked the next logical question, and that is "Does the President have any more control?" You take it as poison, most people that support the Democrat party feel the same when I tell them how wrong they are in supporting this amendment. It is funny they too do not want to see Arnold as President, and even try to make their amendment so that he is unable to run. Just as you did, so who is being Partisan here? Especially seeing as I am so against this that I do not care at all who is or will be able to run for President.


LOL ! You actually think I had Arnold in mind and purposely looked for a clause to keep him out ?

You're too fricken unreal.

[Jimz]

The problem I have with the suggested constitutional amendment is that someone who is born in a nation-state other than the United States would, even if that individual becomes a naturalized citizen of the United States, still retain duel citizenship and therefore be a citizen of two nations. That implies the person may, nothwithstanding the passage of at least 50 years from the time of naturalization, have loyalty to two separate and distinct national entities. Would there not then be potential problems with a decision-making process as President if and when the interests of the two countries in which the President is a citizen diverge?
One other thought. Assuming someone would not be eligible to run for the office of President until 50 years following becoming a naturalized citizen, might not that project someone running for office who is a bit long in the tooth? If so, is that what we societally want to encourage?

[Richard Owl Mirror]

Jimz wrote: The problem I have with the suggested constitutional amendment is that someone who is born in a nation-state other than the United States would, even if that individual becomes a naturalized citizen of the United States, still retain duel citizenship and therefore be a citizen of two nations. That implies the person may, nothwithstanding the passage of at least 50 years from the time of naturalization, have loyalty to two separate and distinct national entities. Would there not then be potential problems with a decision-making process as President if and when the interests of the two countries in which the President is a citizen diverge?
One other thought. Assuming someone would not be eligible to run for the office of President until 50 years following becoming a naturalized citizen, might not that project someone running for office who is a bit long in the tooth? If so, is that what we societally want to encourage?

The Oath of Allegiance to the United States

The following is the text of the Oath of Allegiance:

I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen;
that I will support and defend the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic;
that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;
that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law;
that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law;
that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and
that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.


a bit long in the tooth? :gdgf:

First, a quick sketch of American vice presidents. There have been 46; Their average age on taking the oath was 54.

And how old are you, Mr. President?
Quote: The intriguing question, of course, is whether there is a historical pattern of the younger or older candidate prevailing. In the 35 elections prior to 1996, the older candidate won 23 times, or two-thirds of the elections.

[Doctor_Gonzo]

hehe The Schwarzeneggar Amendment. God help us, I can barely stomach him as the uber-governor of CAL-I-FORN-I-A, let alone imagine what one of his State of the Unions would be like . . .

"And so I, being your elected President, ripped the ARMS off terrorists, beat the economy into SUBMISSION, and filled our enemies with 50MM BULLETS. Some say Americans should PARTICIPATE in government and stop acting like a TUMOR, but I say, I'm in charge now, you belong to me, so you are NOT A TUMOR." ha ha ha

I should never drink my evening scotch and come to these forums.

Incidentally, I see no problem with the President having to be born here to serve. With all the benefits that are offered to immigrants here, and the multitude of ways in which they can still take part in public service, I'm all for the President being one office that will always be a born American citizen.

[David Kelly]

You know what the problem with this is? You're forgetting Uniroyal Natural Born Citizens!
I'd take a Irishwo/man over some Americans any-day.