Political Crossfire Forums

[Richard Owl Mirror]

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.

[psholtz]

So you're trying to change the Constitution so that people like Schwartzaneggar can become president?

Madeline Albright, if she can be truthfully be considered an "American", should be arrested and prosecuted for high treason, as should just about everyone else who served in the Clinton administration.

Same applies to Schwartzaneggar.

Moreover, the phrase "resident" (<- which you are using) has a very specific term in legal parlance. I believe that "residency" can only apply to corporations (or something like that). You might be a "resident" of some state, etc, but that's only b/c the state views you as being a corporation, and taxes you as such. Flesh and blood people are not actually "residents" of anything.. (or something like that.. I might be getting the details wrong, but the fact is that "resident" has a very specific legal meaning, and I don't think you're using it correctly here).

[Richard Owl Mirror]

psholtz wrote: So you're trying to change the Constitution so that people like Schwartzaneggar can become president?

Madeline Albright, if she can be truthfully be considered an "American", should be arrested and prosecuted for high treason, as should just about everyone else who served in the Clinton administration.

Same applies to Schwartzaneggar.

Moreover, the phrase "resident" (<- which you are using) has a very specific term in legal parlance. I believe that "residency" can only apply to corporations (or something like that). You might be a "resident" of some state, etc, but that's only b/c the state views you as being a corporation, and taxes you as such. Flesh and blood people are not actually "residents" of anything.. (or something like that.. I might be getting the details wrong, but the fact is that "resident" has a very specific legal meaning, and I don't think you're using it correctly here).

"a naturalized citizen, Fifty Years a Resident within the United States"
People like Schwartzaneggar can't become president since He would not qualify under the terms I set forth.

I only used Albright because she does qualify under my proposal, regardless of her Politics.
I do believe any person who has lived in this country, in good standing should be afforded this right.
Many in the past thread made the claim that people who were NOT born in this country
would somehow harbor loyalty toward their Nation of birth.
My response was (and is), wouldn't that same concern be attributable to John Negroponte ?
Quote: Negroponte was born in London; his father was a Greek shipping magnate.
John Dimitri Negroponte (born July 21, 1939) is a career diplomat currently serving as United States Director of National Intelligence.

If prior loyalties is a prerequisite, how can anyone trust a foreign-born individual to control National Intelligence ?

[psholtz]

Richard Owl Mirror wrote: psholtz wrote: So you're trying to change the Constitution so that people like Schwartzaneggar can become president?

Madeline Albright, if she can be truthfully be considered an "American", should be arrested and prosecuted for high treason, as should just about everyone else who served in the Clinton administration.

Same applies to Schwartzaneggar.

Moreover, the phrase "resident" (<- which you are using) has a very specific term in legal parlance. I believe that "residency" can only apply to corporations (or something like that). You might be a "resident" of some state, etc, but that's only b/c the state views you as being a corporation, and taxes you as such. Flesh and blood people are not actually "residents" of anything.. (or something like that.. I might be getting the details wrong, but the fact is that "resident" has a very specific legal meaning, and I don't think you're using it correctly here).

"a naturalized citizen, Fifty Years a Resident within the United States"
People like Schwartzaneggar can't become president since He would not qualify under the terms I set forth.

I only used Albright because she does qualify under my proposal, regardless of her Politics.
I do believe any person who has lived in this country, in good standing should be afforded this right.
Many in the past thread made the claim that people who were NOT born in this country
would somehow harbor loyalty toward their Nation of birth.
My response was (and is), wouldn't that same concern be attributable to John Negroponte ?
Quote: Negroponte was born in London; his father was a Greek shipping magnate.
John Dimitri Negroponte (born July 21, 1939) is a career diplomat currently serving as United States Director of National Intelligence.

If prior loyalties is a prerequisite, how can anyone trust a foreign-born individual to control National Intelligence ?
Albright is then a horrible example, since she is a NOT a citizen in good standing. She is a citizen who stands suspected of having a committed high treason, a crime which carries the death penalty in this nation.

John Negroponte is even worse.

When he was ambassador to Honduras, he would kidnap local native women, take them for "rides" up his helicopter, rape them, and toss them down to the ground to their deaths. This has been reported on in any number of mainstream human rights journals.

The man is just a complete animal.

Of course, that's WHY they gave him the national security post that he has.. precisely b/c he's such a beast. Truly, the lunatics are running the asylum.

I see no reason to tinker w/ the Constitution on this matter. There are a zillion other government posts a foreign-born person may serve in if they desire to contribute to the betterment of the nation. Congress, Supreme Court, etc.. Senator Lindburgh, the famous aviator's father, is a good example.. He was born in Sweden, and was one of America's best Congressional representatives.

Besides, you're still ignoring the fact that "resident" has a very precise legal meaning that I think you're abusing here. No amendment using the language you propose here would ever pass, for that reason if no other.

[Richard Owl Mirror]

psholtz wrote: Richard Owl Mirror wrote: psholtz wrote: So you're trying to change the Constitution so that people like Schwartzaneggar can become president?

Madeline Albright, if she can be truthfully be considered an "American", should be arrested and prosecuted for high treason, as should just about everyone else who served in the Clinton administration.

Same applies to Schwartzaneggar.

Moreover, the phrase "resident" (<- which you are using) has a very specific term in legal parlance. I believe that "residency" can only apply to corporations (or something like that). You might be a "resident" of some state, etc, but that's only b/c the state views you as being a corporation, and taxes you as such. Flesh and blood people are not actually "residents" of anything.. (or something like that.. I might be getting the details wrong, but the fact is that "resident" has a very specific legal meaning, and I don't think you're using it correctly here).

"a naturalized citizen, Fifty Years a Resident within the United States"
People like Schwartzaneggar can't become president since He would not qualify under the terms I set forth.

I only used Albright because she does qualify under my proposal, regardless of her Politics.
I do believe any person who has lived in this country, in good standing should be afforded this right.
Many in the past thread made the claim that people who were NOT born in this country
would somehow harbor loyalty toward their Nation of birth.
My response was (and is), wouldn't that same concern be attributable to John Negroponte ?
Quote: Negroponte was born in London; his father was a Greek shipping magnate.
John Dimitri Negroponte (born July 21, 1939) is a career diplomat currently serving as United States Director of National Intelligence.

If prior loyalties is a prerequisite, how can anyone trust a foreign-born individual to control National Intelligence ?
Albright is then a horrible example, since she is a NOT a citizen in good standing. She is a citizen who stands suspected of having a committed high treason, a crime which carries the death penalty in this nation.

John Negroponte is even worse.

When he was ambassador to Honduras, he would kidnap local native women, take them for "rides" up his helicopter, rape them, and toss them down to the ground to their deaths. This has been reported on in any number of mainstream human rights journals.

The man is just a complete animal.

Of course, that's WHY they gave him the national security post that he has.. precisely b/c he's such a beast. Truly, the lunatics are running the asylum.

I see no reason to tinker w/ the Constitution on this matter. There are a zillion other government posts a foreign-born person may serve in if they desire to contribute to the betterment of the nation. Congress, Supreme Court, etc.. Senator Lindburgh, the famous aviator's father, is a good example.. He was born in Sweden, and was one of America's best Congressional representatives.

Besides, you're still ignoring the fact that "resident" has a very precise legal meaning that I think you're abusing here. No amendment using the language you propose here would ever pass, for that reason if no other.

Then you believe the Framers of Our Constitution also used this term wrongly?
Quote: 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."

Or has the term taken on a new meaning since the time of Signing ?

[psholtz]

Richard Owl Mirror wrote: Then you believe the Framers of Our Constitution also used this term wrongly?
Quote: 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."

Or has the term taken on a new meaning since the time of Signing ?
My understanding is that the term "resident" taken on a new meaning since the 14th amendment, and since Supreme Court decisions like Santa Clara County v. Union Pacific Railroad, but I'm not an expert on this.

[Richard Owl Mirror]

psholtz wrote: Richard Owl Mirror wrote: Then you believe the Framers of Our Constitution also used this term wrongly?
Quote: 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."

Or has the term taken on a new meaning since the time of Signing ?
My understanding is that the term "resident" taken on a new meaning since the 14th amendment, and since Supreme Court decisions like Santa Clara County v. Union Pacific Railroad, but I'm not an expert on this.
Did you mean this?
Quote: Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, 118 U.S. 394 (1886) was an important United States Supreme Court case dealing with corporate entities and equal protection.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad
The decision concerned three separate cases:

Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company
California v. Central Pacific Railroad Company
California v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company


Chief Justice Morrison R. Waite announced: "The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does," (the equal protection clause).



And I'm uncertain what portion of http://www.nps.gov/malu/documents/amend14.htm you find that speaks of residency.
Quote: Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

[psholtz]

Richard Owl Mirror wrote: psholtz wrote: Richard Owl Mirror wrote: Then you believe the Framers of Our Constitution also used this term wrongly?
Quote: 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."

Or has the term taken on a new meaning since the time of Signing ?
My understanding is that the term "resident" taken on a new meaning since the 14th amendment, and since Supreme Court decisions like Santa Clara County v. Union Pacific Railroad, but I'm not an expert on this.
Did you mean this?
Quote: Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, 118 U.S. 394 (1886) was an important United States Supreme Court case dealing with corporate entities and equal protection.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad
The decision concerned three separate cases:

Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company
California v. Central Pacific Railroad Company
California v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company


Chief Justice Morrison R. Waite announced: "The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does," (the equal protection clause).



And I'm uncertain what portion of http://www.nps.gov/malu/documents/amend14.htm you find that speaks of residency.
Quote: Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
Yes, that is the court case I'm referring to, and I don't know much more about it. I could look it up, but it would take me time. Perhaps I'll do that.

My understanding of the issue is that under the new rules, only corporations can have residency (hence, Santa Clara County v. Union Pacific Railroad, which redefined corporations as "people"). By default, all American citizens are corporations. This is how the IRS gets away w/ levying a tax on you. The income tax would be illegal otherwise, since it is a direct tax and it is not apportioned among the States, as the Constitution requires. But if the IRS is just taxing "corporate gains" instead (i.e., it redefines your "personal income" as a "corporate gain" .. which is in fact technically how the IRS operates), then they are able to tax you as much as you like.

So, most Americans are corporations and maintain their corporate status throughout their entire lives. The smart Americans are NOT, and they divorce themselves from their corporate strawman so as to (legally) avoid paying taxes, being drafted, etc. I'd be amazed if Albright, being in the position that she is/was, was so dumb so as not to have filed the necessary paperwork and divorced herself from her own strawman. MOST people in Washington do this.. and my point is that after taking this step, I'm not sure that you can be legally classified as being a "resident" of any place under U.S. law.

But, like I said, I'm not an expert.. there are probably subtelties here that I'm missing.

I also wonder whether being a "U.S. resident" means being resident in one of the 50 States, or whether it means being a resident in the U.S. Federal Corporation, which is to say the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, one of the Federal territorities, etc. I have a feeling that under the new rules, "U.S. resident" has the latter interpretation, and so the vast majority of Americans in fact are NOT U.S. residents (since they don't reside in DC), but instead are only residents of their respective sovereign State.

It'd be fun to look into this some more, though.

[John Galt]

Santa Clara offhandeldy remarked thatcorporations were bascailly the equivalent of people, legally speaking. Which has it's ups and downs. You can sue people, for example.

I don't think it made the scope you speak of SHoltz. Do you have IRS rules that refer to personal income as corporate gain?

Only once did the Supreme Court refer to the income tax as a direct tax, and that is only because it was coupled with a property tax. Thus the 16th merely overturned that decision and granted Congress no new powers.

As for the initial question, as stated before the wipe...

Any alligence whatseover to a foreign country is a bad thing for the President to have. George Washington reminded us to stay away from "entangling alliances" and right we should. A foreign President would be very bad for this country. I don't care how long he lived here. As for Albright, also as stated previously, her attatchment to her home was used as political propganda by our "enemies" during our bombings of eastern Europe to stop the supposed "genocide" that was going on there. And perhaps it did contribute. But even the feeling of others of bias towardss one homeland is terrible. The President should be concerned with only Americans.

[psholtz]

John Galt wrote: I don't think it made the scope you speak of SHoltz. Do you have IRS rules that refer to personal income as corporate gain?
I got that from the new Aaron Russo film, "America: Freedom from Fascism" .. it's a quote/fact/stat that's brought up a couple times in the film.

I saw a pre-screening of it a couple weeks ago..

I'll see if I can't find a separate reference for it.

[Publius2006]

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.

I must say that I would completely support an amendment such as this; in fact I have frequently called for an amendment with the exact specifics of the one you have discussed (naturalized, 50 year resident).

I think that there are many foreign born citizens of this country who are just as well qualified and patriotic, if not more, than many natural born citizens who currently hold political office. I believe that, given the length of residence required, such a person would no longer hold any sort of major allegiance to there birthplace, let alone an allegiance dangerous to the union.

[Richard Owl Mirror]

Publius2006 wrote: Richard Owl Mirror wrote: A Constitutional amendment which is justified - Article II ~ Section 1 - The President
~snip~.

I must say that I would completely support an amendment such as this; in fact I have frequently called for an amendment with the exact specifics of the one you have discussed (naturalized, 50 year resident).

I think that there are many foreign born citizens of this country who are just as well qualified and patriotic, if not more, than many natural born citizens who currently hold political office. I believe that, given the length of residence required, such a person would no longer hold any sort of major allegiance to there birthplace, let alone an allegiance dangerous to the union.

I was just surfing/searching and came across this website.
I used it as an example in another thread but, I was struck at how it dove-tails into this proposal of mine.

Please read the entire quote below, then reflect upon the Foriegn-born exclusion in our Constitution and if We, the People might never have had second thought's about trusting him with our safety and liberty.

Citizen of United States

Quote: Declaration of Citizenship
Response by President John F. Kennedy
and the Response by Winston Churchill

Declaration of Honorary Citizen of United States of America
April 9, 1963



BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
A PROCLAMATION

WHEREAS Sir Winston Churchill, a son of America though a subject of Britain, has been throughout his life a firm and steadfast friend of the American people and the American nation; and

WHEREAS he has freely offered his hand and his faith in days of adversity as well as triumph; and

WHEREAS his bravery, charity and valor, both in war and in peace, have been a flame of inspiration in freedom's darkest hour; and

WHEREAS his life has shown that no adversary can overcome, and no feat can deter, free men in the defense of their freedom; and

WHEREAS he has by his art as an historian and his judgment as a statesman made the past the servant of the future;

NOW, THEREFORE, I, JOHN F. KENNEDY, President of the United States of America, under the authority contained in an Act of the 88th Congress, do hereby declare Sir Winston Churchill an honorary citizen of the United States of America.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the United States of America to be affixed.

DONE at the City of Washington this ninth day of April, in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and sixty-three, and of the Independence of the United States of America the one hundred and eighty-seventh.

JOHN FITZGERALD KENNEDY

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Remarks by President John F. Kennedy at
the White House, Washington D.C., April 9, 1963

We meet to honor a man whose honor requires no meeting -- for he is the most honored and honorable man to walk the stage of human history in the time in which we live.

Whenever and wherever tyranny threatened, he has always championed liberty.

Facing firmly toward the future, he has never forgotten the past.

Serving six monarchs of his native Great Britain, he has served all men's freedom and dignity.

In the dark days and darker nights when Britain stood alone -- and most men save Englishmen despaired of England's life -- he mobilized the English language and sent it into battle. The incandescent quality of his words illuminated the courage of his countrymen.

Given unlimited powers by his citizens, he was ever vigilant to protect their rights.

Indifferent himself to danger, he wept over the sorrows of others.

A child of the House of Commons, he became in time its father.

Accustomed to the hardships of battle, he has no distaste for pleasure.

Now his stately Ship of Life, having weathered the severest storms of a troubled century, is anchored in tranquil waters, proof that courage and faith and the zest for freedom are truly indestructible. The record of his triumphant passage will inspire free hearts for all time.

By adding his name to our rolls, we mean to honor him -- but his acceptance honors us far more. For no statement or proclamation can enrich his name -- the name Sir Winston Churchill is already legend.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sir Winston's response
28 Hyde Park Gate, London, April 6, 1963
As read at the White House
by Randolph S. Churchill, April 9, 1963

Mr. President,

I have been informed by Mr. David Bruce that it is your intention to sign a Bill conferring upon me Honorary Citizenship of the United States.

I have received many kindnesses from the United States of America, but the honour which you now accord me is without parallel. I accept it with deep gratitude and affection.

I am also most sensible of the warm-hearted action of the individual States who accorded me the great compliment of their own honorary citizenships as a prelude to this Act of Congress.

It is a remarkable comment on our affairs that the former Prime Minister of a great sovereign state should thus be received as an honorary citizen of another. I say "great sovereign state" with design and emphasis, for I reject the view that Britain and the Commonwealth should now be relegated to a tame and minor role in the world. Our past is the key to our future, which I firmly trust and believe will be no less fertile and glorious. Let no man underrate our energies, our potentialities and our abiding power for good.

I am, as you know, half American by blood, and the story of my association with that mighty and benevolent nation goes back nearly ninety years to the day of my Father's marriage. In this century of storm and tragedy I contemplate with high satisfaction the constant factor of the interwoven and upward progress of our peoples. Our comradeship and our brotherhood in war were unexampled. We stood together, and because of that fact the free world now stands. Nor has our partnership any exclusive nature: the Atlantic community is a dream that can well be fulfilled to the detriment of none and to the enduring benefit and honour of the great democracies.

Mr. President, your action illuminates the theme of unity of the English-speaking peoples, to which I have devoted a large part of my life. I would ask you to accept yourself, and to convey to both Houses of Congress, and through them to the American people, my solemn and heartfelt thanks for this unique distinction, which will always be proudly remembered by my descendants.

WINSTON S. CHURCHILL

[Wyatt Earp]

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.

[John Galt]

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.

[Richard Owl Mirror]

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?

[John Galt]

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?

Yes. Every President needs to be willing to nuke Canada.

[Richard Owl Mirror]

John Galt 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?

Yes. Every President needs to be willing to nuke Canada.

And what makes you think, if there existed a valid reason to do so, Granholm would not do so?

[Wyatt Earp]

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.

It kind of makes sense to me, but not really, when I think about it, I am 1/2 Polish, 1/2 German, Born in the USA. Growing up in Chicago, I hanged out only in the Polish and German part of the City. So with your argument I would be biased towards the Germans and Polish if I was elected president (God help the world if I ever get elected President).
I mean that same argument is what put the Japanese Americans in camp's in WWII, and latter when they let some of them fight in the Europe theater, they earned there merit.

[Quicksurf]

I would never support such an amendment.

Our country should be led by a natural born American, not a naturalized American. First generations will never fully understand the American way of life, and they should not have the oppurtunity to hold the highest office of our government.

[sunwook]

So people younger than 50 can't be pres?