Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

Scribbler1 · Jan 19, 2005, 12:20 am

Quote:

Quote by: tinybear

Incidentally if the Constitution is full of things which someone can find unfair, wouldn't it be a good idea to review those provisions which are perceived unfair instead of shrugging it off and doing nothing about it?

That was my whole point! I believe I even gave examples. But again, nothing there is important enough to open the Constitution at this time. Maybe YOU trust the government but I DON'T! I believe even our dear President referred to the document as "that pesky Constitution" so I don't have a lot of faith that the safeguards those incredibly smart and prescient men worked out would survive the government's tinkering.
Just leave the damn thing alone. You are advocating taking a BIG risk and when you drag the rest of us into that risk you should rethink its impact on all of us.

tinybear · Jan 19, 2005, 12:21 am

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Doesn't this mean that the express mention of certain rights in the Constitution does not mean that other rights which are not mentioned are thereby disparaged or denied? How does that support your assertion that all rights mentioned in the Constitution are not absolute?

tinybear · Jan 19, 2005, 12:24 am

Quote:

Quote by: Scribbler1

That was my whole point! I believe I even gave examples. But again, nothing there is important enough to open the Constitution at this time. Maybe YOU trust the government but I DON'T! I believe even our dear President referred to the document as "that pesky Constitution" so I don't have a lot of faith that the safeguards those incredibly smart and prescient men worked out would survive the government's tinkering.
Just leave the damn thing alone. You are advocating taking a BIG risk and when you drag the rest of us into that risk you should rethink its impact on all of us.

What's the risk of amending the constitution so that Americans born overseas can run for President? We can add a proviso to the effect that every candidate for the Presidency must have ordinarily resided in the United States for say 20 years or more.

Scribbler1 · Jan 19, 2005, 12:27 am

Not all rights MENTIONED, but all RIGHTS are not absolute. The Constitution states those NOT mentioned in the document are up to the states and the people, which means that the rights that ARE mentioned are controlled by the Constitution are are therefore part of the rights not absolute. In a less roundabout way it means the right of who can be president is not absolute and IS restricted. And again, that's the way it is and it ain't worth screwing with.

Scribbler1 · Jan 19, 2005, 12:34 am

Quote:

Quote by: tinybear

What's the risk of amending the constitution so that Americans born overseas can run for President? We can add a proviso to the effect that every candidate for the Presidency must have ordinarily resided in the United States for say 20 years or more.

You completely miss the point. Once a Con Con is opened they can do ANYTHING they want with the Constitution. They can (and I believe WOULD) gut the damn thing and the Supreme Court wouldn't do a damn thing about it. This, and some other "pressing" issues that just scream out for amending are merely smokescreens and you are being taken in by one of them. Notice that every one of these calls for a constitutional amendment are "hot button" issues like abortion and flag burning? Ever hear about a call for amendment for some dull procedural change or to even simply update the language? No, because these issues are not emotional enough to guarantee a large number of Americans will blindly follow whatever the government asks for.
Think about it.

I just looked at the times on the last 2 pages and this is looking like a chat room! Goodnight.

tinybear · Jan 19, 2005, 12:36 am

Hmmm, I'm never gonna be a lawyer that's for sure. These legal documents are not easy to understand. Hey, are there any other lawyers/potential lawyers here besides Waychel and Catch 22? Can Waychel or Catch 22 express a view on the issue please?

Rainbow · Jan 19, 2005, 03:58 am

Quote:

Quote by: tinybear

Practically anyone born in the USA. But if you're not born in the USA, you can't. Now does that accord with the principle of equality (or for the principle of merit for that matter)? Does it even accord with common sense?

So do you think that the Constitution ought to be amended so that US citizens who were not born here can make a bid for President?

The formula that U.S.-born only can run for the Presidency has been established long time ago, with a single purpose on mind (of those whoever had that idea) :
- prevent "outsiders" from getting the power of reigns
- Americans, only

In that time, U.S. was a very young state, and it is (still) in comparison to majority of European, Asian, ect. around the globe. The idea was to protect young U.S.
Since all the Americans - except for the Native-Indians - are "Native Immigrants" :-))) who have became that Land's pilgrims while shaping it for centuries, have all the rights to run for the U.S. Presidency and "grab" 4 years lease (at least) in White House. :-)))

There is no assurance that the U.S.-born only or the Naturalized-American will be "the right man on the right place".
No device has ever been developed (yet) to read a person's mind, so it is hard to figure out which of candidates - the U.S.-born only or the Naturalized American - is going to be a better choice.

Personally, I have no opinion, but till a reasonable solution is on a horizon I would rather stick to the option : the U.S.-born only, (even if a complete moron :-))) ).

kharmajunkie · Jan 19, 2005, 04:27 am

Quote:

Quote by: PatrickHenry

Quote:

Quote by: tinybear

Come on. Surely America can't be xenophobic. We should amend the Constitution now. Besides, Arnold isn't getting any younger, you know.

Arnold S. IS THE REASON for the desire by some to change the Constitution. But let me ask you this, tinybear: In a potential conflict between the US and Austria, are you certain where Arnie's loyalties would lie?
That is the reason for the founders fully conceived notions about Presidential qualifications. They were geniuses. Unlike the present leadership in DC.

I don't like Arnold or his movies; usually, but I don't like rule of law keeping non-natives from running for any office in America. I think you should live here for a significant period of time before running for any office but it goes against traditional American values to keep someone from running; we have too
many election restrictions as it is and look where that's gotten us. The only difference between us and a real Monarchy is that we elected our silverspoon bearer; he's no more qualified than that big set
of ear lobes in England when it comes to running a country.

Suburbanite · Jan 19, 2005, 05:15 am

Quote:

Quote by: tinybear

Practically anyone born in the USA. But if you're not born in the USA, you can't. Now does that accord with the principle of equality (or for the principle of merit for that matter)? Does it even accord with common sense?

So do you think that the Constitution ought to be amended so that US citizens who were not born here can make a bid for President?

I think being born in America should be a requirement. I mean... this is the United States, citizenship is too easy to get, being born here is the only way you'll win anyways.

tinybear · Jan 19, 2005, 06:03 am

Why don't we make it more difficult to obtain citizenship then?

Spartacus · Jan 19, 2005, 10:40 am

Quote:

Quote by: tinybear

Why don't we make it more difficult to obtain citizenship then?

because it defeats the purpose of having a free country if no one was able to come and enjoy it. Think we have an illegal immigrant problem now? Tighten up citizenship laws and you'll see a real crisis.

The point here is should naturalized citizens be eligible to run for and be President? I say they should. At the same time I think that there should be no restriction on how many times a person should be allowed to run for President. If he's doing a hell of a job, re-elect him. Putting a term limit on whether a qualified person should be allowed to be President is as artificial as the restriction, now no longer needed, on whether a naturalized cictzen should be allowed to run. Remove one restriction and you should remove them all. A person who is a citizen can be President as many times as the people shall elect him, simple as that.

tinybear · Jan 19, 2005, 10:44 am

Are you sure? I can see it now: George W Bush, 4 more years, 4 more years, 4 more years!!!!

Spartacus · Jan 19, 2005, 10:53 am

The trouble with that scenario is when the constitution IS amended, the current occupant of the White House is always exempted from the rule. This prevents tampering for the benefit of the President. Nothing would stop him from coming back and running after he was out of office the same way Grover Cleveland did if the changes were made. But then, nothing would stop Bubba from running either and Bubba would walk all over Dubya the Doofus if they ran against each other. So, "bring it on!"

Lou Minotti · Jan 20, 2005, 01:38 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman

That's kind of ridiculous, though. There are now large groups of people *inside* the US whos goals are so foreign to my own that I don't trust them at all. Special interests are now a large part of American Politics. Keeping someone out just because they were born in another country seems naive and quant.

You "don't trust them at all" but let them be president? That certainly doesn't make sense. I never even use the word but in this case, I am more than happy to use the expression, No foreigners. No exceptions. That's it.

tinybear · Jan 20, 2005, 01:40 pm

No equality of treatment for all Americans? Lou, I'm shocked you said this. :eek:

Here's a guy who wasn't born in America, but he fights for America like no other:

http://soundamerica.com/sounds/theme...S/suprmn51.wav

Lou Minotti · Jan 20, 2005, 01:41 pm

Quote:

Quote by: BaronVEsslingen

because it defeats the purpose of having a free country if no one was able to come and enjoy it. Think we have an illegal immigrant problem now? Tighten up citizenship laws and you'll see a real crisis.

Make it more difficult than simply walking across the border, you mean? What do you mean? If we make it like nearly every other country in the world (as in having an actual, enforced border) things will get worse? How do you figure? I want to see the numbers on that....

Lou Minotti · Jan 20, 2005, 01:50 pm

Quote:

Quote by: tinybear

No equality of treatment for all Americans? Lou, I'm shocked

They weren't Americans until they were naturalized. All this talk about amending one of the most fundamental aspects of the Constitution is so completely ridiculous, it makes me want to vomit. Hey Tiny, do you really think it's a good idea to give security clearances to people born under foreign governments? Yes or no?

tinybear · Jan 20, 2005, 02:40 pm

Yes. Why not? They're no less Americans than those born in America. Are you going to say that Bob Hope is not American?

Lou Minotti · Jan 20, 2005, 02:44 pm

But Bob Hope is an American, so, why would I say he isn't? We aren't talking about citizenship. Let's keep this discussion in this discussion and not somewhere in Tinyland. Why not? Do you want a million reasons or just one?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/444899.stm
http://www.mosnews.com/news/2004/11/...alianspy.shtml

tinybear · Jan 20, 2005, 02:47 pm

So every American should be eligible for running for the Presidency. Doesn't matter where he was born. Makes sense, no? Equality, remember?

Jan 20, 2005, 02:44 pm	#59 (permalink) (top)
Lou Minotti BANNED (Multiple usernames after another ban) Posts: 1,337	But Bob Hope is an American, so, why would I say he isn't? We aren't talking about citizenship. Let's keep this discussion in this discussion and not somewhere in Tinyland. Why not? Do you want a million reasons or just one? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/444899.stm http://www.mosnews.com/news/2004/11/...alianspy.shtml Last edited by Lou Minotti; Jan 20, 2005 at 02:46 pm.

Jan 19, 2005, 12:21 am	#42 (permalink) (top)
tinybear Volcanic Erupter Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 7,333	"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Doesn't this mean that the express mention of certain rights in the Constitution does not mean that other rights which are not mentioned are thereby disparaged or denied? How does that support your assertion that all rights mentioned in the Constitution are not absolute?

Jan 19, 2005, 12:27 am	#44 (permalink) (top)
Scribbler1 Skeptical Patriot Posts: 7,836	Not all rights MENTIONED, but all RIGHTS are not absolute. The Constitution states those NOT mentioned in the document are up to the states and the people, which means that the rights that ARE mentioned are controlled by the Constitution are are therefore part of the rights not absolute. In a less roundabout way it means the right of who can be president is not absolute and IS restricted. And again, that's the way it is and it ain't worth screwing with.

Jan 19, 2005, 12:36 am	#46 (permalink) (top)
tinybear Volcanic Erupter Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 7,333	Hmmm, I'm never gonna be a lawyer that's for sure. These legal documents are not easy to understand. Hey, are there any other lawyers/potential lawyers here besides Waychel and Catch 22? Can Waychel or Catch 22 express a view on the issue please?

Jan 19, 2005, 06:03 am	#50 (permalink) (top)
tinybear Volcanic Erupter Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 7,333	Why don't we make it more difficult to obtain citizenship then?

Jan 19, 2005, 10:44 am	#52 (permalink) (top)
tinybear Volcanic Erupter Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 7,333	Are you sure? I can see it now: George W Bush, 4 more years, 4 more years, 4 more years!!!!

Jan 19, 2005, 10:53 am	#53 (permalink) (top)
Spartacus voyager Location: where I am free Posts: 111	The trouble with that scenario is when the constitution IS amended, the current occupant of the White House is always exempted from the rule. This prevents tampering for the benefit of the President. Nothing would stop him from coming back and running after he was out of office the same way Grover Cleveland did if the changes were made. But then, nothing would stop Bubba from running either and Bubba would walk all over Dubya the Doofus if they ran against each other. So, "bring it on!"

Jan 20, 2005, 01:40 pm	#55 (permalink) (top)
tinybear Volcanic Erupter Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 7,333	No equality of treatment for all Americans? Lou, I'm shocked you said this. :eek: Here's a guy who wasn't born in America, but he fights for America like no other: http://soundamerica.com/sounds/theme...S/suprmn51.wav

Jan 20, 2005, 02:40 pm	#58 (permalink) (top)
tinybear Volcanic Erupter Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 7,333	Yes. Why not? They're no less Americans than those born in America. Are you going to say that Bob Hope is not American?

Jan 20, 2005, 02:47 pm	#60 (permalink) (top)
tinybear Volcanic Erupter Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 7,333	So every American should be eligible for running for the Presidency. Doesn't matter where he was born. Makes sense, no? Equality, remember?