View Single Post
  #25   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 20-09-2004, 11:42
jonathan lall's Avatar
jonathan lall jonathan lall is offline
Registered User
FRC #2505 (The Electric Sheep; FRC #0188 alumnus)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Rookie Year: 2001
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 547
jonathan lall has a reputation beyond reputejonathan lall has a reputation beyond reputejonathan lall has a reputation beyond reputejonathan lall has a reputation beyond reputejonathan lall has a reputation beyond reputejonathan lall has a reputation beyond reputejonathan lall has a reputation beyond reputejonathan lall has a reputation beyond reputejonathan lall has a reputation beyond reputejonathan lall has a reputation beyond reputejonathan lall has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via MSN to jonathan lall
Re: Should the requirements for President be changed?

On topic now, that's why amending formulae for constitutions are in practice pretty silly; you need an overwhelming number of people that care (as opposed to an overwhelming number of people who agree) in order to change them. In Canada, we're lucky that most relevant non-procedural constitutional law was drafted in 1982; our values haven't 'progressed' enough to warrant a public outcry. Americans aren't so lucky.

In the case of this law, by the time it becames relevant (assuming it hasn't been already), it's too late for our poor presidential hopeful. Now that there's (albeit unfounded) buzz about the Governator running, the Right as a whole is starting to consider the prospect of this law's revision, alongside an already large portion of leftists.

Nowadays we can see the stupidity and plain discrimination of a law that says people not born in the States can't lead it, but back when democracy as we know it was in its infancy, this was perfectly alright. Let me just say one more thing: I hope nobody who thinks a "small step" forward that takes a lot of effort isn't worth it, ever leads my country.
__________________

Reply With Quote