One moment in the first GOP presidential debate has been little discussed — when 7 of 10 candidates nixed the idea of changing the Constitution to allow naturalized citizens (such as California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Republican National Committee chairman Mel Martinez) to run for president. Only Rudy Giuliani and Mike Huckabee said yes; John McCain said maybe. Frank Rich of the New York Times saw this as pandering to the anti-immigration fervor in the nation. But is that link clear? Isn’t reluctance to amend the Constitution a valid reason?
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/24
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/24
- HLP on Open thread 11/24
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/24
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/24
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
- Monkeyhawk on Open thread 11/24
- LonnythePlumber on Goldman Sachs ‘apology’ hollow
- LonnythePlumber on It’s the stupidity about the economy
- XXX on Open thread 11/24
34 Comments
yes
Giuliani and Frank Rich got it wrong. Rich is usually right on the money and I must have missed his explanation. At least Rich had an opportunity to explain his point-of-view. In the debate, if I remember right, Giuliani and the rest were told to give a yes or no, thumbs up or thumbs down type of answer. Geez. These guys are running for president and they need more than a split-second to explain why they did something. You had Matthews out there like a schoolmaster, shaking the finger if the guy tried to talk. Short of chucking erasers at people’s heads (thunk!), it’s hard to see how he could be more disciplinarian. So the candidates had no chance to explain and that gave Rich an opportunity to sort of opine about why they gave it the thumbs down.
Should we amend the constitution to allow the governator to run? Hell, no. And I don’t even dislike the guy. The founders set it up this way and it’s one of those things you don’t trifle with if you’re smart, even if you can’t think of a reason. Call it karma, superstitious, frigging paranoid, whatever you want, but keep the rule exactly the way it is. Why? Because it works. It’s worked all this time and will continue to work. People look at Arnold and say, “Hey, he might be good.” You know what? They might be right. But it’s one of those deals where, if you change it, you might find yourself down the road a ways and finally have it dawn on you that the founders had it right all along.
IMO, we don’t need to rush into changing the Constitution because of a popular movie star/governor. But, on the other hand, naturalized citizens have had to go through a lot more to attain citizen status than those that were born here.
Naturalized citizens have demonstrated a belief in this country, have had to wait years, study, and take an oath of citizenship.
So, after going through all that, why not amend the Constitution. After all, the babies of illegals born here are legally allowed to be President, but a hard working and dedicated naturalized citizen is not?
Although I wouldn’t mind Schwarzenegger being President of the U.S., I think it is a precipitous path to change the Constitution because of a popular person.
What would be next if we based all of our decisions on popularity rather than principled decisions of our founding fathers?
What would be next if we based all of our decisions on popularity rather than principled decisions of our founding fathers?Posted by: Republican | May 25, 2007 at 07:45 AM
ANS: We’d end up with Augustus Stupidus, aka GW Bush, for president.
“Isn’t reluctance to amend the Constitution a valid reason?”
Rhonda, surely you jest. Reluctance to amend the constitution?
Hell, repukes want to amend the constitution every time they get their panties in a wad. State and National constitutions. They use constitutional amendments like the rest of us use paper towels.
Got a problem with gay marriage? Amend the constitution! (Which of course implies that the constitution as it stands now permits it?)
Got a problem with those anti war folks who want to burn a flag? Amend the constitution.
Prayer in schools, ten comandments in courthouses? Amend the constitution.
And dont forget, more than seventy percent of kansans had NO problem amending the state constitution to make SURE “those people” did not have equal protection under the law.
And they’d amend the constitution to forbid abortions in a heart beat. With the three fundie exceptions of course. Rape, incest, and their daughter!
Nope. I see NO reluctance to amend the constitution.
In fact, the repukes obviously care so little about the constitution they allow shrub to sodomize it right in front of their children.
Spying on citizens without court approval? Check. Signing statements? Check. Recess appointments? Check. Patriot Act uber alles? Check.
Yeah. I see their respect for the constitution….
Farmgrrl,
You rock.
Repukes eh ksfoamgull?
Guess I’ll have to start back using DemoCraps again.
Notice the ksfoamgull also posted her objections to my statement on the Open thread even though the topic is here.
Like that attention do ya foamgull?
As usual, instead of sticking to the topic at hand, ksfoamgull adds the Liberal Left laundry list of whines.
Regardless of the issue, the Constitution doesn’t need to be changed because an issue has become popular.
This applies to the premise that naturalized Citizens do not qualify for the office of the President.
“Regardless of the issue, the Constitution doesn’t need to be changed because an issue has become popular.”
No shit sherlock.
“This applies to the premise that naturalized Citizens do not qualify for the office of the President.”
It also applies to the premise that gay citizens have equal protection under the law.
And that abortion is safe and legal.
Jesus wept…
hehehehehe! Thanks Tom! Back atchya. I love walking in lockstep with you!
I see that ksfoamgull is asserting the “gay” issue into every thread now.
(big yawn)
NEW RULE: REPUBLICAN AND HIS MANY NICS NO LONGER EXISTS ON THIS WEB.
He’s been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be a liar who conjures up personal experiences out of whole cloth, nic-switches, cuts and pastes selectively to make people sound bad, plagiarizes and lies about it.
He’s just an all-around jerk.
From now on, he’s a scroll-over.
And I encourage those of us who value informed discourse to do the same.
He also web-stalked and trolled Ken.
Sorry, capn…I must have missed the memo that put you in charge of this blog….you now have the “authority” to claim that certain people “do not exist” anymore?
After making unprovable accusations, you deem he doesn’t exist? Interesting…I didn’t know you had that much power.
Now Capn. I like Republican. Because he isn’t afraid to question the craziness of the left. And, of course, because he frustrates you. It’s free entertainment.
Besides, I have never understood the urge you have to personalize things. He is an electrical impulse on a computer screen, just like you.
Yup, right on cue, the reich-wing circles the wagons to defend the indefensible.
I actually wasn’t writing to you–you two are lost causes.
I was writing to the reasonable people . . .
But thanks for playing, and try again soon.
CapnAmerica,
It is not any different than what you guys do here.
Well, I’m not going to get into a big discussion about it, Nathan.
But actually it’s very different that what “us guys” do.
I have never claimed to be something that I’m not. I’ve never claimed to be a black man or to have moved to Mississippi or to be a Turkman or a visiting Black professor from Africa named Gail.
I’ve never cut and pasted someone’s post with the intention of making it say something that it didn’t.
I’ve never switched nics and then said that I never switched nics, or that the former nic wasn’t mine.
I’ve never come up with phony stories about close relatives fighting in Iraq who know the real score.
I’ve never pretended to know about a work of literature that I’d never read and when I was called on it, to plagiarize a web-source without citation as if the ideas and wording were my original ideas.
That’s very different than what I or Steven Davis or WSClark or CF2K or FrmGrrl or YOU do.
Just because he’s on “your side” politically doesn’t mean you should support a common liar.
But if you want to be known as the guy who is on the side of lies and liars, then by all means, continue to argue for him.
Lost cause? Sorry, Capn..try again. Your arrogance of telling us new rules is a little overbearing. Even for you.
It also applies to the premise that gay citizens have equal protection under the law.Posted by: ksfarmgrrl | May 25, 2007 at 09:36 AMI agree. I doubt seriously that many other ‘fundies’ as I’m referred to as being for my views against abortion would say this. Religiously, I think it is wrong. However, I’m not going to judge those who are gay, and under the constitution I do believe have the right to be so with protections. As such, I don’t see gay unions, marriages, whatever causing familial problems and destroying families.
And that abortion is safe and legal.Posted by: ksfarmgrrl | May 25, 2007 at 09:36 AM
And they’d amend the constitution to forbid abortions in a heart beat. With the three fundie exceptions of course. Rape, incest, and their daughter!Posted by: ksfarmgrrl | May 25, 2007 at 08:54 AM
As for abortion, it depends on how you define where life starts. If like me, one sees life starts at the moment of conception as it is the first developmental stage of life. I’m not saying that at this stage this newly formed human is anything more than cells or intelligent. Given that, most who say abortion should be safe and legal only stop at the it is an “unwanted pregnancy” line and don’t try to understand the underlying causes. At the same time those who are pro-life, don’t attempt to address the underlying causes very often either. As such, abortion is going to remain safe and legal.
What I don’t see is why don’t more people work to: provide birth control, stop rapes(seriously punish the rapist), stop incest(seriously punish the relative who does this), etc. Why are we not working to help support our teenage mothers and single mothers? Oh yeah, because abortion is the easy answer(I am not saying an easy choice to make, far from it) and so long as we don’t call the unborn a human it’s all good. Why? Because if we call the unborn a human then this life has protection under our constitution also. Life, liberty, then happiness in that order. Therefore life holds the most importance. I’m both similar and dissimilar to the fundies you describe here. While, not like my mom who donates time to helping teenage mothers I do donate money to those organizations who spend their time working with those who find themselves in a situation they can not control.
No I wouldn’t amend the constitution. I think it is well written as it is on its intent. In the case of medical necessity? Yeah, but as medicine advances those cases will become less prevalent.
Yeah Republican is no doubt great, free entertainment.
Of a sort.
Not often you see somebody write so clearly about disturbing personal problems (frequently revolving around obvious doubts he has concerning his sexual identity, btw, although Republican also feels free to veer unconsciously, hell cheerfully, off to his lack of personal integrity) which are laid out neatly for the reader, but which remain totally unknown him.
How do I know? Easy. Read him. He ain’t smart enough to purposely write this stuff.
Say what you want about the more colorful here among the left. They’re all pretty much self-aware, at least about the big things. Republican, on the other hand, obviously ain’t.
Republican is to “entertainment” what retard jokes are to humor: naivity offered up as sport for the masses. But I guess some of you have to go with what you’re given.
Sorry to disappoint you Capn…but please show me where I was defending anything? I was questioning your riduculous “rule”. Do you even bother to READ anything before attacking?
I agree with Pendant. Let’s not censor Republicon. He is the best argument for our positions that I know of. His spittle spraying diatribes of hatred, explain the poverty of conservative ideology better than anything anyone else could say.
You are correct, Mr. Davis, Repub is the best advertising possible for the progressive position. The fact that he makes an absolute fool out of himself in the process is just an added bonus.
I have to admit that I usually scroll over much of his posts, until he begins to get personal with folks that I respect, then I enjoy slapping him around a bit.
I find it humorous when he attacks even those moderate posters like Ken, because they don’t march in lockstep with the other Twenty-Eighters.
I agree with Capn’ that the Right will ride to the rescue of Republican, while ignoring the same tactics (or worse) used by those same Right Wingers.
(drumroll)
Hypocrisy, the name is Republican.
Capn:
While I’m not generally a fan of Republican,1) who died and made you king?2) I see the same kind of stuff from both sides. KFG, for example, makes it a point to be just as inflammitory.
But that’s acceptable politically inflammatory, I guess.
Don’t like his writing? Fine. Scoll-over to your heart’s content. That’s not your goal, of course. As usual from the left, the goal is free speech for me, but not for thee.
Yawn. What else is new?
‘how ’bout “politiclally acceptable inflammatory”
Must have lost the dislexia filter today . . .
Steven Davis,
I agree with your 11:38 AM post. Republican is an excellent example of GOP strategy.
Republican lies about what peer-reviewed scientists say — despite my pointing out his falsehoods before.
He lies about me, and about what I’ve posted.
He stupidly posts a short snip from a link — but the full context contradicts his claim.
Republican is unable to defend his opinions — he just weaves, makes false personal attacks, obfuscates, or slinks away.
In short, he represents the GOP.
“I agree with Capn’ that the Right will ride to the rescue of Republican, while ignoring the same tactics (or worse) used by those same Right Wingers.”
Clark, agree with the above. It may be my ideological blinders (I have them like most other people I know), but I can’t see where KFG does anything remotely resembling what the Kahn does.
She does ridicule conservatives when they take themselves seriously, but she has never that I recall blathered on about how repubs are limp, flaccid, impotent performers of oral sex on everyone – which puts her in stark contrast to the Kahn.
Latest discussion on open thread Cosmos. It appears that your new PhD to the blog can’t figure out how to explain percentages of man-made CO2 in atmospheric columns above the ocean sinks.
Care to try your hand at it Cosmos?
I need technical/scientific explanation Cosmos – not anymore of your hyperlinks or Op-Ed pieces.
Are you up to the challenge Cosmos?
Your PhD failed,it’s your turn.
As if the fisters don’t band together every chance they get? C’mon people…your hypocrisy is showing–again.
I hadn’t really thought about it but you guys and grrls are right. Republican is the perfect example of many Republicans.
To wit: he supports a war that he or his family is willing to fight themselves (exactly like W Bush and Cheney).
He pretends to be be smart but only knows the scripts that the neocons have given him (exactly like W Bush and Cheney).
He is a liar (again, exactly like W Bush and Cheney).
oops, should be…
….he supports a war that he or his family is UNwilling to fight themselves (exactly like W Bush and Cheney).
The problem is that many citizens who were born in another country have dual citizenship and thus the question arises whether they can be totally American ever. That does not mean that they cannot love America and be as patriotic as any American born here but they do maintain feelings and ties for the old country too. I am married to a citizen of Canada and, as much as she loves this country, she loves her home country too. There are times when a President must be called upon to make decisions that might not be popular with his home country. I am not saying that a President could not do so but it is a question many Americans would ask.
The United States Constitution should only be amended under the most pressing of conditions, and then only to grant rights, not to limit them.
When John Ashcroft was a Senator from Missouri, he proposed SEVEN different Constitutional amendments.
To grant the right to run for president to Ah-nold via a Constitutional amendment would be the worst abuse. Of course, it would be unlikely that it would past the Democratically control Senate.
Wait. The Dems just rolled over like little fat puppies to grant Bush carte blanche to run the War on Iraq.
Forget I mentioned anything about Dems standing up to anything.