-
02-25-2004, 01:59 AM #81Originally Posted by BamaSlamma
I agree.
I might vote for Arnold for Pres, but geez, do we change the US Constitution primarily to accommodate one possible political candidate, or do we change the Constitution to improve the functioning of government?
Chile (or some other South American country) elected a Japanese citizen as its president a while back. Worked out ok at first, but after a while they ran him out of the county. Dunno the dirty details, but I'll bet it was good . . .
There's no reason why the notion couldn't be considered, but to do so because you like Arnold ain't the right reason to do it. Might be a good idea, though, to leave the executive branch of the US gov't in the hands of someone who's been here all his life, instead of only 20 years like what they want to do . . .
--Tock
-
02-25-2004, 12:48 PM #82
nope, unless your a natural citizen, then you dont get to be Prez, and to those who dont like it, call micheal moorer, only us naturally born citizens should be able, and there are to many people with malicious intent to chance a foreign prez, and personally im pretty sure he would get assainated, there are way tomany extreme org. that wouldnt deal with that.
-
02-25-2004, 02:44 PM #83Originally Posted by PurePower
If you are a citizen for a certain peroid of time, you might soon be able to. Ammend the ammendment. This is a bad idea. The only reason this would be a good idea would be for Arnold but then what happens AFTER that??? There are plenty of better qualified people to run for pres legally than there would be if ammended. I think that would put our nation at risk for traitors and such. If you arent born here, you shouldnt be able to run the country.
Thread Information
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
SVT and steroids?
04-23-2024, 09:28 PM in ANABOLIC STEROIDS - QUESTIONS & ANSWERS