Article

2004-11-19 Home Front: Politix

Albright Backs Foreigners for Presidency

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2004-11-19 3:55:38 PM|| || Front Page|| [1 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Halfbright backs foreigners for Presidency? I'm sure she would stump for Kim Jong EVil or Chiraq if given the opportunity (or a lapel pin).

Posted by Tibor 2004-11-19 4:18:39 PM|| 2004-11-19 4:18:39 PM|| Front Page Top

#2 Sorry, no. No matter how much I admire Ahnuld, the fact remains that the framers put in the birth requirement to avoid a situation in which somebody who didn't understand the people of the US would become president. They remembered William, who came to Britain barely able to speak English, and they wanted no part of that -- and neither do I.

Posted by Jonathan 2004-11-19 4:20:48 PM|| [http://www.workaround.blogspot.com] 2004-11-19 4:20:48 PM|| Front Page Top

#3 where is Team America when you need them.

Posted by anon 2004-11-19 4:21:00 PM|| 2004-11-19 4:21:00 PM|| Front Page Top

#4 I like Arnold as much as the next girl :), and I think he would make a terrific president, but I will not agree to amending the Constitution.

Posted by Seafarious 2004-11-19 4:26:49 PM|| 2004-11-19 4:26:49 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 Why "foreigners"?
Somebody who has become an U.S. citizen is not a foreigner. He has very deliberately chosen America.
A person who came to the U.S. when he was one year old and lived all his life in America cannot become president.
A Mexican or Colombian who was born in Miami (just to get U.S. citizenship), then lived most of his time outside the U.S. can run for president.
Some balance wouldn't hurt. 20 or 25 years of U.S. citizenship AND living that time in the U.S. should qualify, or not?

Posted by True German Ally 2004-11-19 4:29:48 PM|| 2004-11-19 4:29:48 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 I'm with Seafarious.

Posted by 2b 2004-11-19 4:34:26 PM|| 2004-11-19 4:34:26 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 Well, I have to note Johnathan, that he's QUITE the opposite of William I.

Posted by Theans Gleart9753 2004-11-19 4:38:32 PM|| 2004-11-19 4:38:32 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 TGA...I'm still feeling a little bit burned by the 9/11 hijackers. They were able to come to our country, partake in all of its freedoms, take flying lessons, pray or not pray as they chose, without any restrictions or questions from anyone here. How did they repay our generosity?

I worry that a Constitutional change would encourage a group (similar to al-Q) to infiltrate someone early in his career into the US and eventually use him against us. Does it sound a little spy novelish? Perhaps. So did the plot to September 11.

Posted by Seafarious 2004-11-19 4:48:41 PM|| 2004-11-19 4:48:41 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 With all due respect to TGA and Ahnuld, let's not mess with the Constitution. Especially if the people plumping for the change have a particular candidate in mind.

On a related topic, I don't know much about King William III, but King George I definitely alienated his subjects by not bothering to learn English. His two greedy German mistresses really annoyed the English people. One day, when the mistresses' carriage was pelted with fruit, the ladies asked, in their thick accents, "Why do you abuse us so? We are here for your goots!" To which somebody in the crowd shouted, "Aye, and all our chattels, too!"

Posted by mom 2004-11-19 4:50:52 PM|| 2004-11-19 4:50:52 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 TGA - the basic argument against non-natives becoming president is this: What if we were to go to war with the president's former "homeland"? Would he or she possibly get into some sticky dual-citizenship thing, or would family members still in the old country be used as hostages? If there was some kind of dispute between the US and the other country short of war, there would always be the divided loyalty question if the prez would take an action that was seen as more favorable to the other country as opposed to America. (I was taught in school that this was the real reason for that.....the founders wanted to make sure that the President would always put the interests of America first, and they believed a native-born citizen would be able to do that easier than one born overseas. True or not? I don't have the answer for that.)

Actually, when the Constitution was created, the founders allowed for foreign born citizens to become president if they were born before the Constitution was ratified (they left that little escape clause in there for Alexander Hamilton). They've been talking about changing it for a while, but it's always just been talk.

BTW, isn't Albright Czech-born? Please tell me she doesn't think it would benefit HER!?!? NOOO!!!

Posted by Desert Blondie 2004-11-19 5:47:30 PM|| 2004-11-19 5:47:30 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 Sorry about that last paragraph on my post. Should've read the entire article. My bad.

Posted by Desert Blondie 2004-11-19 5:52:26 PM|| 2004-11-19 5:52:26 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 No Bleeping Way!!!!!

For every Arnold on the right there is a George Soros or worse on the left.....

Posted by Rick T 2004-11-19 6:20:15 PM|| 2004-11-19 6:20:15 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 What, we got like 290 million people and we can't find someone fit to be president? I like Arnie's movies and he hasn't destroyed California, but I see no reason for him to be president. This is pure vanity.

Posted by BH 2004-11-19 6:24:10 PM|| 2004-11-19 6:24:10 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 Dammit Lizzy the B is ready to run! Your speciesism is hurting your karma.

Psst.... Lizzzzzy! Liiiiiiiizy.

Posted by Shipman 2004-11-19 6:32:03 PM|| 2004-11-19 6:32:03 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 Halfbright? That is a pure, unadulterated flattery!

'Alldim' she is in my book, and the fact that I was born the the same country is rather painfull to me.

"Please tell me she doesn't think it would benefit HER!?!?"

Of course she does. But seriously, who would vote for her?

How about VP? The same requirements like for a president?

Posted by CornÃ®liÃ«s 2004-11-19 6:36:14 PM|| 2004-11-19 6:36:14 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 Same.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2004-11-19 6:40:48 PM|| 2004-11-19 6:40:48 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 MadMax Halfbright can STFU!!!!!

Go back to your insane asylum biiiiatch!!!

Posted by Poison Reverse 2004-11-19 6:43:29 PM|| 2004-11-19 6:43:29 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 Ack!

Posted by .com 2004-11-19 6:47:30 PM|| 2004-11-19 6:47:30 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 SYN!

Posted by Poison Reverse 2004-11-19 6:51:07 PM|| 2004-11-19 6:51:07 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 "I think that it would be not a bad thing to try to figure out how to allow foreign-born people to become president"

Welllll. We already knew she was unqualified to teach International Relations 101, now it becomes apparent that English is out as well

Posted by Frank G 2004-11-19 6:51:49 PM|| 2004-11-19 6:51:49 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 No bleeding way.

For every Arnold on the right there as a George Soros and WORSE on the left.

Posted by Rick T 2004-11-19 7:04:06 PM|| 2004-11-19 7:04:06 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 I love Arnie as my Gubner - no way as President, and pointing to Soros explains it all

Posted by Frank G 2004-11-19 7:10:56 PM|| 2004-11-19 7:10:56 PM|| Front Page Top

#23 It ain't gona happen. I mean for crying out loud what are these people smoking? I know, let's let Chirac come over and show us the way.

Posted by RJB in JC MO 2004-11-19 7:13:26 PM|| 2004-11-19 7:13:26 PM|| Front Page Top

#24 IIR my civics correctly, this would require a constitutional amendment. To get a constitutional amendment, you have to get it to

Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

This is a serious procedure that requires a righteous supermajority. We have in the order of a dozen amendments made in our 200+ year history since the Bill of Rights. This idea is just a whim that will pass, just like trying to get rid of the electoral college. The heartland states will never let this thing happen. We have plenty of qualified candidates in this country without having to go to outsourcing.

Sources and quotes good enough for ya, MS?

Posted by Alaska Paul 2004-11-19 7:14:56 PM|| 2004-11-19 7:14:56 PM|| Front Page Top

#25 Hmm, I wonder whom she has in mind?

Posted by CTD 2004-11-19 7:49:25 PM|| 2004-11-19 7:49:25 PM|| Front Page Top

#26 mr. ronery?

Posted by Frank G 2004-11-19 7:51:45 PM|| 2004-11-19 7:51:45 PM|| Front Page Top

#27 LOL, Frank!

Posted by .com 2004-11-19 8:22:17 PM|| 2004-11-19 8:22:17 PM|| Front Page Top

#28 Well I'm really not hanging my hat on that one.
Maybe the only thing I would object to is calling foreign born U.S. citizen "foreigners".

Once they accept citizenship, they are no longer foreigners.

Posted by True German Ally 2004-11-19 11:10:35 PM|| 2004-11-19 11:10:35 PM|| Front Page Top

17:55 Josh
17:55 Josh
17:55 Josh
17:55 Josh
17:55 Josh
17:53 Josh
17:53 Josh
17:53 Josh
17:53 Josh
17:53 Josh
17:52 Josh
17:51 Josh
23:58 Mike Sylwester
23:56 Frank G
23:54 Frank G
23:47 Mike Sylwester
23:43 Mark Espinola
23:42 Steve White
23:40 lex
23:35 True German Ally
23:31 Barbara Skolaut
23:30 lex
23:29 2b
23:29 Mike Sylwester