Should the requirements for President be changed?

[Jaine Perotti]

Originally Posted by Eugenia Gabrielov

I don't think this thread is going anywhere. And it's just going to be another shouting match, and I've been in enough of them recently to realize how stupid they are. Can we lock or at least moderate this thread before it really starts becoming an issue?

I agree with you Eugenia.
Making light of the assasination of ANY person is completely innapropriate.
As I have read more and more of these types of threads, the more I realize how useless they become. Somehow, a lot people are under the impression that they can change another person in an instant. By arguing on a thread like this, you are not going to be able to change the opinion of someone just as stubborn as you are, especially if it is done in an argumentative manner. People will be LESS open to another's opinions if they are negative in tone or are directly attacking them on an issue. While I think intelligent discussion of a topic is useful, this type of discourse hardly ever occurs in a politically charged thread topic. Conversations often quickly go downhill. I wish that the CD community would take a step back and realize that political topics are just inviting another flame war. The FIRST community does not need this type of division amongst it's members any more. Please close or at least moderate this thread.

[David Kelly]

Opposition and constructive criticism is healthy as long as somebody doesn't say outlandish claim. I don't remember where exactly it was, if it was in this thread or another, and who exactly said it (mostly because I'm too lazy to look it up. ), but I say that is good to have discussions like this. This organization that we are all part of, is a fraction of society. I think that it is good for us to discuss politics because WE are the future and WE will one day be the leaders, but only if we don't have nuts out there who are also the kind that don't think that man landed on the moon.

The moral of this story is that constructive criticism is good, but only as long as you don't act like a complete idiot.

[Jaine Perotti]

Originally Posted by David Kelly

Opposition and constructive criticism is healthy as long as somebody doesn't say outlandish claim. I don't remember where exactly it was, if it was in this thread or another, and who exactly said it (mostly because I'm too lazy to look it up. ), but I say that is good to have discussions like this. This organization that we are all part of, is a fraction of society. I think that it is good for us to discuss politics because WE are the future and WE will one day be the leaders, but only if we don't have nuts out there who are also the kind that don't think that man landed on the moon.

The moral of this story is that constructive criticism is good, but only as long as you don't act like a complete idiot.

I completely agree with you. It IS important to contribute to society as our generation must be prepared to take leadership in the future. I just hate it when people take things out of control, context, and/or end up hurting people. Sometimes this happens on CD, and I just want people to chill out and think carefully before they take things in the wrong direction.

[Katie Reynolds]

Soooo what about those requirements to be president - should they be changed?

[Eugenia Gabrielov]

Originally Posted by David Kelly

Opposition and constructive criticism is healthy as long as somebody doesn't say outlandish claim. I don't remember where exactly it was, if it was in this thread or another, and who exactly said it (mostly because I'm too lazy to look it up. ), but I say that is good to have discussions like this. This organization that we are all part of, is a fraction of society. I think that it is good for us to discuss politics because WE are the future and WE will one day be the leaders, but only if we don't have nuts out there who are also the kind that don't think that man landed on the moon.

The moral of this story is that constructive criticism is good, but only as long as you don't act like a complete idiot.

A good point. However, the problem with doing it in this thread is that many people see political thread and go BLEH. I personally think that Political threads should have their own category in chitchat. A lot of things that are said on these threads do spur constructive criticism, so where shall we start?

I don't think people will ever stop being cruel on political threads, but you're right constructive criticism is important. *shrug* I learn things in political threads from people who know what they're talking about or ask questions to learn.

[Billfred]

Alright, I guess it's time for me to weigh in on the question. (well, and steer it back onto topic, but still...)

Personally, I think the natural-born requirement should be tossed (all other things being equal). I get the feeling that if you're a US citizen and have lived here for 14 years, you've learned enough about this country to have a crack at the office. Besides, if people are scared about it, they have a solution--don't vote for 'em!

[OZ_341]

I just wanted to apologize for Blue Orion's Comments on behalf of Team 341. These comments were insensitive and way off base. I am personally embarassed and so are the many team members that emailed me to tell me about this post.

Yes, this is a free country, but with freedom comes the burden of acting responsibly and with dignity. Unfortunately this did not happen with this post.

I also wanted to thank the Delphi online community for not turning this into a bashing session. You certainly have conducted yourself with dignity in this matter.

Unfortunately this posting will be a major topic of our next team meeting.

Please accept my apology and that of our students.

Thank You!

Al Ostrow
Team Leader

[ngreen]

I personally don't think there is a reason to change this rule and don't think it should be changed. This president regardless of what we like, represents the US to the world. I don't want a president that is holding any special foreign allegiances. Also I think there are far more serious and more important issues to worry about than if a foreign born citizen can run for president. Barring a campaign from Arnold this isn't even an issue. Making it one is absurd. I would way rather put effort into issues such as helping the economy, affordable health care, fighting poverty, national security, peaceful solutions for the world, and other issues that are hard issues that make a difference. People really like to get onto minuscule laws and regulations and forget to look at the really big picture. I say, who cares.

[Madison]

Originally Posted by BlueOrion

Just like they did 9/11. Sure, most of it was true, I guess. But a Boeing 747 DID NOT fly into the Pentagon. No wreckage, intact windows at the "crash site", concentric circular holes (planes don't do that!!), and there is no way it could be 2 feet off the ground right before it hit, when it would have just had to clear I-395. And of course this is hard to prove because the FBI confiscated all of the video from the surrounding gas stations and other places.

You're absolutely correct. A Boeing 747 did not fly into the Pentagon, as no Boeing 747 aircraft were hijacked on September 11, 2001. The aircraft that was flown into the Pentagon was a Boeing 757 (this one, in fact). American Airlines hasn't operated any Boeing 747 aircraft in more than ten years. Now, did you want to share more of your expert crash site analysis with us?

Anyway, I'm not sure how I feel about the qualifications for President being changed. I believe that the circumstances for which they were written are no longer plausible and that there are just as many dangers in putting the wrong American into office today as there might've been in allowing a foreigner into office two hundred years ago and that suggests that the existing qualifications are no longer relevant.

[jonathan lall]

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.

[dlavery]

Originally Posted by Kristina

Besides Native Americans, don't we all really come from lineage that is of immigrants. Our nation's motto is "E Pluribus Unum," which means out of one, many. I think if we want to fully embrace this, then it's time for change.

Actually, the national motto translates as "From many, one." The distinction is rather important to the meaning of the phrase.

-dave

[ngreen]

You've got to look for a good return for your effort, or in this case a good return for what we pay our congress men and women for. That is for me to improve the quality of life for the citizens of the us, to take an active and peaceful presence in the world, and the create fair laws as solutions to problems. I don't see changing a two hundred year rule which has to my knowledge not be challenged for the last 150 years(just a guess) by constitutional admendment is not a good return for my tax dollars.

There is many things foreign born nationals can do in this country. They can become governors, senators, supreme court justices, and any other political office. I think it is fair to reserve our top office for natural born citizens, which covers a very large population of people.

I guess I'll never be the president of Canada because I think effort should be proportional to results. And changing this law would be a "small step" but not particularly forward, or backward, more like a "small step" nowhere. I think thinking about changing this law comes somewhere after thinking about a healthcare and prescription drug plan.

[jonathan lall]

Perhaps you don't understand the significance (or lack thereof) of it being 200 years old. A constitutional law is a constitutional law and has supreme legal standing. What possible relevance to this does the fact that it hasn't been challenged have? The bottom line after all should be: is it just or unjust?

Here's a three-step plan to figure out where you stand:
1) do you believe immigrants should be afforded the same rights and freedoms to those who were born in the United States?
2) do you believe those who can run for mayor or governor should be allowed to run for president?
3) do you believe a president shouldn't necessarily have to be US-born?

I see this rather black and white: If you disagree with either of the first two, your disagreement with the third makes sense (which I believe might be where ngreen is coming from). If you disagree with only the third, you've made an error in logic. I happen to agree with all three.

That argument of yours with respect to expenditure is almost fair, but do you know for a fact how many tax dollars it would take? Would you be of the same opinion if you, or someone you knew were born in Canada, and at age three decided that being President of Canada wasn't good enough and moved to the States? What if this person, having grown up in US schools and voted in US elections, decided he or she wanted to be President of the United States?

That's my thinking.

[Eugenia Gabrielov]

I would like to ask a question of those who seem to be a bit more knowledgable about this subject.

What would this change do socially really? For example, many people have cited that the more important concerns are those of healthcare and education and national wellbeing. However, socially, how would our country actaully react to a foreign president running?

And most interestingly, what comes first? A woman in presidential office, or a not-naturally born citizen?

Not meant as a criticism, I just think that socially this would have an intense impact. Many individuals currently hold prejudices towards individuals from various countries, how could this possibly change the policies if they were put in place?

[Jay H 237]

Originally Posted by Eugenia Gabrielov

And most interestingly, what comes first? A woman in presidential office, or a not-naturally born citizen?

Ok, I didn't get a chance to thoroughly read this thread through and I see it started about asking if a non U.S. born citizen should be allowed to become president but I like Genia's point of what about a woman holding office. At this day and age I don't see why the Constitution can't be ratified to allow a woman to become president. Woman have made many social advances in this country in the past 50+ years and this is one hurdle they can't conquer because of the current stipulations of our Constitution. We can have woman governors and supreme court justices but why not president? What ever happened to "equal rights"?
Now as for a non U.S. citizen, I don't see why after so many years of living here they couldn't be allowed to run. Think about this, of all the people in the U.S. didn't thier distant relatives, and some not so distant relatives, come to the U.S. from other countries. I don't see why others shouldn't be allowed to represent this country since it's a country of many different backgrounds to begin with.

My .02



Now I think I'll vote Genia for president!