Gunco Forums banner

1 - 7 of 7 Posts

·
Friend of MCMXI
Joined
·
8,717 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Interesting story. I've heard you folks comment on Arnold and figured you might like the story.

http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/cadamo/2004/cga_1206.shtml

Don't Let Schwarzenegger Tamper With The Constitution
By Christopher G. Adamo
December 6, 2004
In the aftermath of the 2000 presidential election, liberals raged at the "injustice" of the Electoral College. Consequently, they demanded the standard "fix," echoed every four years, of amending the Constitution to select the president by popular vote.

But although conservatives breathed a sigh of relief in 2000, the delayed determination of Ohio's vote this year, and its decisive role in President Bush's reelection, predictably resulted in rumblings from the right that, indeed the Electoral College needs to be discarded. Once again however, the wisdom of the founders has been made evident, for those who are willing to recognize it.

In the past two presidential races, the primary focus, both before and after Election Day, was on individual states. In 2000 everything centered on the state of Florida, while in 2004 it was the state of Ohio. Though the Founders' premise of federalism has largely been abandoned in modern times, statehood was a crucial component of that philosophy.

By definition, the emphasis on statehood de-emphasizes the supremacy of the federal leviathan. Conversely, erosion of states' rights bolsters the notion of the helpless and lowly citizenry at the mercy of their impersonal and unaccountable federal master.

The framers of the Constitution never intended the chief executive to govern as a "monarch of the masses," but rather as President of the United States. It is altogether evident that the Electoral College enhances this concept.

The American people ought to realize by now that major changes to the fabric of the country, particularly those implemented out of fear or in response to an immediate crisis, rarely work to the best interests of the country in the long run. Now it is Republicans who, fearing a Hillary candidacy in 2008, are pondering a fundamental change in the makeup of the nation from which it might never recover.

Since his meteoric rise to the governorship of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger has been toying with the notion of running for President, possibly as early as 2008. Unfortunately for him, a constitutional barrier stands in the way. Not having been born within the borders of this nation, or on an American military base overseas, he is presently ineligible for the presidency.

So, to nobody's great surprise, Schwarzenegger is advocating the passage of a constitutional amendment to remove this roadblock. And equally predictable are those unprincipled Republican "moderates" who, rarely hesitating to jump on any passing "bandwagon," believe this to be a good idea.

Though the adverse effects of such a Constitutional alteration might not immediately become apparent during a Schwarzenegger presidency (Schwarzenegger's liberal politics notwithstanding), the damage to American sovereignty would eventually be severe.

Consider how seemingly virtuous foreign statesmen such as Vicente Fox, president of Mexico, having no ingrained allegiance to the American homeland, eventually display their regard for it as just one of many nations throughout the world.

Completely unwilling to even use the term "illegal alien" when describing the hordes of unlawful invaders streaming into America, Fox instead asserts their "right" to be here, totally disregarding the hardship they pose to the rightful inhabitants of this nation. Fox's chief interests are, not surprisingly, for his own people. Similar examples among other foreign leaders abound.

Some might attempt to deflect this argument by pointing out that such sentiment exists among naturalized citizens. Certainly this is true. The birthright clause of the Constitution was never intended to be the sole prerequisite, but only one of several qualifications.

Another frequently invoked argument is that some American citizens are far less devoted to the nation than is Schwarzenegger. John Walker Lindh, the "American Taliban," is a prime example. Yet much the opposite can be gleaned from the Lindh situation.

Aside from Bin Laden and Mullah Omar, Lindh was undoubtedly the most famous enemy combatant of the Afghan war. As a natural born American turned Taliban, Lindh had abominated his heritage. And it was for this very reason that the country took note of him. Americans instinctively recognize the degree of perversity necessary for one of their own to turn so thoroughly from his roots.

It was the founders' understanding of the nearly universal ties to one's place of birth, which inspired them to include such a requirement in the nation's founding document. Its removal would forever diminish America as a unique and sovereign nation.

Arnold Schwarzenegger can serve this country in numerous other ways. If he truly holds it in high regard, he will leave its Constitution intact.
 

·
Code name: Felix
Joined
·
6,361 Posts
Don't pay attention to him, it's just another "foot in your mouth" case. I wasn't born here and I would never vote for a non born citizen. He's just a loud mouth austrian who won't be back!.
 

·
Code name: Felix
Joined
·
6,361 Posts
Cephus said:
We can only hope!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Don't worry, we the people won't let it happen, it's bad enough we have to vote american born traitors off the white house, we don't need the loud mouth movie actor in there. Rest asured my friend, rest asured.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,868 Posts
don't see it passing (constitutional ammendment) in time for 08

sure hope it don't happen either !
 
1 - 7 of 7 Posts
Top