Put past to rest, Hatch says of Arnold

Another reason to VOTE NO ON THE RECALL

The Salt Lake Tribune

This was linked from BuzzFlash:

http://www.sltrib.com/2003/oct/10042003/utah/98550.asp

Hatch has introduced a resolution to amend the Constitution's ban on non-American-born presidents by allowing people who have been U.S. citizens for at least 20 years to be elected to the White House. While the measure was not introduced with Schwarzenegger in mind, Hatch said the Austrian-born superstar would be a perfect example of why the constitutional amendment is needed.

    "If Arnold Schwarzenegger turns out to be the greatest governor of California, which I hope he will, if he turns out to be a tremendous leader and he proves to everybody in this country that he's totally dedicated to this country as an American . . . we would be wrong not to give him that opportunity," said Hatch.

How much of the 9 billion that Enron saves by getting Ahnold in office will you get? You piece of shit.

Those four words should scare the shit out of Hatch!

:)

he gets negative numbers approaching a new Guiness record. This guy presents himself as some high moral leader, then endorses Arnie the Termite-Eater? Okay, Hatch. I'll go lie down now.

NT!

Hatch said the Austrian-born superstar would be a perfect example of why the constitutional amendment is needed.

You.
Think.
We.
Should.
Amend.
OUR.
Constitution.
So.
That.
A.
Guy.
Like.
Ahnold.
Could.
Be.
Our.
President?

Head between knees. Breathing deeply.

These people are insane! While I believe anyone who has lived (I don't know the magic number of years) in this country should have the right to persue their dreams, Hatch envisioning Arnold Hitler as President is just...well...loco!

I know it is difficult for those of us on the left, especially the 'soft' left, to understand. But the fact is people like Hatch are not crazy. The actually DO want the equivalent of 'Hitler' in the White House. They really DO want to annihilate the Constitution. What is happening around us is a result OF THEIR AGENDA. It is not an 'accident': IT IS A PROGRAM. What we are witnessing is the dissimilating of our Constitutional Republic.

They want a nice little feudal theocracy right here in our own (?) U. S. of A., and they are well on their way to getting it.

Everyone will be of the "right" religion, wear the "right" clothes, eat the "right" foods, watch the "right" movies, bear the "right" number of children of the "right" sex and sexual orientation. Etc., etc., etc., etc., etc.

They want to go back to the 50s --- the 1350s. Before the Reformation, before the Renaissance, before the Enlightenment.

Be afraid. Be very afraid. And be vigilant. They are not crazy, but they are evil.

... they are, by definition, both insane and dangerous. Yes, they have an agenda. In a constitutional society, however, their agenda is completely, to borrow a phrase, barking mad.

n/t

Just because one has an agenda does NOT mean he/she has an iota of sanity. Charles Mansion had an agenda - does that make him the guru of common sense? Was Stalin sane?

NT!

EDIT: speeeling

really. It gets old.

They chant it as a mantra over and over again any time people bring up their momentous tramplings of the democratic process. So they stole the election by having a partisan hack five member majority stop a lawful recount. "Get over it," they chant. So Dick Cheney met in secret with the corporados to decide how to gut environmental regulations and sell off national treasures to the highest bidder. "Get over it," they chant. So Junior lied and people died."Get over it," they chant. So their handpicked candidate to reverse a lawful election has been exposed as a possible serial sexual predator by his victims. "get over it," they chant. It is their talisman to ward off any criticism or serious discussion of their regressive policies and to silence anyone who has the temerity to point out unpleasant truths about them and their nefarious activities.

that they can't get after the "Big Dog" anymore. They must have "got over it."

The right wing certainly doesn't mind wearing their hypocrisy on their sleeves.

God, that line gets old! How can you get over it when they only sweep it under the rug and act like it didn't happen!

All we need is a Neo-Nazi action hero in the White House. We're already the #1 laughing stock of the world! That would cinch up the title for years to come! What in the hell is happening here??? As much as I love Bill Clinton, I have to blame him in part for this fiasco in US politics. They (GOP) saw an opportunity to grab the ball and run with it on the basis of morality and we have a f***ing free-for-all in our midst. Nobody in their right mind would want to take on the White House in it's current sad state, and that scares me!
Monica Lewinsky should be tried for treason!
Whew! I feel much better now.........Thanks! :silly:

Of course he does. He's got sex crimes to cover up, too, you know: thousands of polygamists still living in Utah. State-sanctioned child abuse, women treated as property. Arnold would fit right in.

Bill Clinton - You first.

Gossip putting him as one of the biggest womanizers in DC.

Hey, even a broken clock is right twice a day.

For the life of me, I can't figure out why someone who isn't born in the United States must automatically be disqualified from seeking the highest office in the land. Jennifer Granholm, the governor of Michigan, can't be president because she was born in Canada. Is that right?

it is right. For every Jennifer Granholm there are a zillion Kissingers and Schwarzneggers.

to occupy the White House?

Boy, is that sad.

is that we'd wind up with someone like John Sununu,Sr. who once had huge political ambitions. I've had more cause in my lifetime to rejoice about this law than to decry it.

Nor am I so fearful about the future of the Democratic Party that I'd make all immigrants second class citizens in order to weed out a few potential Republican presidential candidates.

Instead, I choose to remain faithful to the Democratic Party's principles of equality and opportunity.

I can't wait to remind you of your high and mighty stance when this amendment gets rammed through and Arnie is president.

Don't condemn all immigrants to second class status just to keep Arnold out of the White House.
If the Constitution had a provision barring women from becoming president, you'd oppose that, right?

If the Constitution have a provision barring African Americans from becoming president, you'd oppose that, right?

Why is it any more acceptable to bar immigrants -- regardless of how long they've been US citizens -- from becoming president?

a covert infiltrator from one of our enemy countries. Their children, born in the US can be president. The neocons are just looking for a "leader" who can fool all the people all the time, instead of, well you know. The truth is they have no charismatic leaders in their party, so they are trying to get an actor to play one. Believe me, they need one. They're desperate. BTW, how come pugs are so ugly?

Would be the absolutely, positively, solid bang-on perfect candidate to run against Schnickelgroper.
John
It's like the Dems pushing to DX the Special Prosecutor provision in the wake of the Clinton witchhunt. Be careful what you wish for, you might just get it.

He's just saying it to get Arnold elected.

edited for clarity
2nd edit: whoops. never mind

Frankly, I'd support the amendment even if it was sponsored by Tom Delay. This change is long overdue.

AND WHO IT WOULD CONVENIENTLY COINCIDENTALLY BENEFIT!

Everything the reich wing does is suspect!

Not ONE, not ONCE, has ANYTHING the reich wing done or sponsored ANYTHING that has not IMMEDIATELY benefited them personally, as opposed to those on the left or Democrats. NOT ONCE!

But I could name MILLIONS of instances where Democrats and those on the left have fought for and done things that personally caused great sacrifice to each one of them personally, while benefitting others, starting with the founders of our once great country.

We are a poorer country as long as we continue to treat one group of citizens as inferior to another. That was certainly the case during segregation. It is no less the case now, when we deprive naturalized citizens to opportunity to seek the highest office in the land. While it is true that far fewer people are affected by this caste system, the principle is the same. All citizens deserve to be treated equally. Telling someone they can't be president simply because they aren't a natural-born citizen is wrong. It's just plain wrong. It's rooted in suspicion of the motives and loyalties of immigrants. The Democratic Party I belong to doesn't condone xenophobia.

This is one area where we SHOULD discriminate.

I just think it's not unreasonable to expect the highest office in the land to be for native-born persons only.

Imagine if there were a concerted effort to move here - en-masse - for the specific purpose of "electing" someone from another country. That could be among the WORST outcome of changing this rule that I could think of. Sort of like how the Native Americans must have felt when Europe colonized them all.

that you would deny them the opportunity to vote for the candidate of their choice? Why should the Constitution and not the voters decide whether or not an immigrant is fit to hold the highest office in the land?

Just because you might not trust immigrants to run the country doesn't mean that other voters should be denied the opportunity to reach a different conclusion.

Our founding fathers were right to have such concerns.

I am not contemptuous of the American Public. On this, very important issue, one has to be native born. It's just that simple. Immigrants can have any other offices. Just not this one. I am the son of immigrants. That law is there for a very good reason. I am, however, suspicious of YOUR motives, having read many of your past posts.

I discriminate against children because I believe that those under 16 shouldn't be allowed to drive.

I discriminate against old persons because I believe that some past a certain age shouldn't drive either (I'll be there soon enough,unfortunately).

I discriminate against those who are not brain surgeons to do brain surgery.

I ESPECIALLY DISCRIMINATE AND WILL/HAVE ACTIVELY PROSECUTE ANYONE WHO PRACTICES ARCHITECTURE WITHOUT A HAVING A VALID ARCHITECT'S LICENSE!

Your arguments are strawmen. Apples and oranges.

If makes me laugh if it weren't so sad.

One of the reasons why the law is in place, is so the President would not have divided loyalties. If you're born here, your loyalties would lie in the country you were born in. Too many hangups and loyalties to the country of birth. Besides, how many good candidates have we lost because of this law? I think, not many. OTOH, Peter Jennnings would have made a wonderful candidate. LOL

after he buys the farm I'll think about it.

Don't hesitate, please.

foreign born citizens should be eligible to hold the office of the presidency?

As for whether I'd support such an amendment, the answer is yes. But such and amendment would never pass, because small states and politically competitive large states have much to gain under the current system.

Anyway, what's your opinion on whether foreign born citizens should have the same rights as natural-born citizens?

I believe that the one office of President should be a native-born American.

The implications of possibly divided loyalties in a non-US born citizen, while minor enough to allow governorship or Congressional seats are still present. The President should have not even a tiny bit of allegiance to a country of birth.

Better and more efficiently said.

Another example of Hatch's idiocy and also the law of unintended consequences: His amendment would also allow Jennifer Granholm - current Democratic governor of Michigan to run for President(She was born in Canada). That would be a real Republican nightmare.

Hatch latest to back presidency amendment
http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/07-03/07-12-03/a01lo010.htm

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO ALLOW FOREIGN-BORN CITIZENS TO BE PRESIDENT
…
Mr. MCDONALD. All right. I could give what I consider the definitive argument against the proposed amendment in two words: Arnold Schwarzenegger, but I have been allotted 5 minutes, so I will take the 5. I will explain the reference, if it does not follow.
…
Mr. FRANK. Thank you.

First, I would ask, Professor McDonald, I assume the reference to Arnold Schwarzenegger was to hold out the terrible prospect that he might get elected President.
…
http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju67306.000/hju67306_0.HTM

S.J.RES.15
Title: A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to make eligible for the Office of President a person who has been a United States citizen for 20 years.
Sponsor: Sen Hatch, Orrin G. (introduced 7/10/2003)
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:s.j.res.00015:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=191699

Over my dead and bleeding corpse.

of a hat at a staff meeting? If it does not matter to you if an immigrant can run for president, then why not have them be eligible the moment they become citizens?

Leave it alone. Then the Murdochs of the planet can buy citizenship, but not the whole enchilada.

If one is foreign born but grew up in this country then they can run for president.

That would eliminate the Kissingers and Schwarzeneggers and others who moved to this country because they have an agenda.

NT

One who comes here as and adult can be planted as a spy or a covert operative. It's a bit harder to do that with a child.

never happen- takes to many states to ratify.

Famous last words. I have to ask, has nothing happened in the socio/political spectrum in the past few years prior to which you would have said "never happen"?

Personally, just a few years ago I couldn't IMAGINE an unelected TRAITOR occupying the White House with IMPUNITY. Yet, here we have it.

We're going to give Arnold as much a chance as the yuppie fascists gave Davis.

If he wins tomorrow, recall petitions will be taken out Wednesday. I'll sign any put in front of me.

The theft of the election by this unqualified, groping corporate whore will not stand.

Frankly, I would have thought most people around here would be offended by the fact that the U.S. Constitution prohibits ALL foreign-born citizens -- regardless of how long they've lived in the United States, regardless of how many contributions they've made to society, regardless of their qualifications -- from holding the office of President of the United States.

This is discrimination, pure and simple. Would we accept a constitutional prohibition against women holding the office? No. Against African Americans holding the office? Against Catholics holding the office? No. Against Jews holding the office?

Why then is it acceptable to prohibit immigrants from holding the office? I'm no fan of Arnold, but I'm not going to allow my distaste for this individual blind me to the fact that this provision is discriminatory. Democrats are supposed to be in favor of equal opportunity for all. Why should the White House become a country club where immigrants aren't entitled to membership?

I was married for twenty years to a Korean who became a naturalized citizen when our younger son was six months old. In spite of the fact we are no longer man an wife, I feel I did this country a service by sponsoring her immigration and supporting her.

You know as well as I do that Senator Hatch's proporsal is not about immigrants in general, including my ex-wife, but about somebody in particular who only thinks he is worthy to be governor of California and who has paid his dues to that snotty private country club known as the Republican Party.

Yes, I can support his proposal in principal. However, I think to ask why is he bringing it up now, in the context of the triumph of a useful fool to the GOP, is a legitimate question. It is unfortunate that Senator Hatch, in bringing up an otherwise worthy proposal in this way, has lent it to this kind of cynicism. I resent it.

It would be an understatement to say that our Republic is under Constitutional duress. Moreover, some can easily argue that this duress has been intentionally and willfully caused with malice toward the Constitution by persons within our own society.

At this moment the only thing that stands between you and I and abject tyranny is this piece of parchment we call the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution was drafted to protect us from the very threats which are now percolating like a virus within our very midst. Very recent historical events has put the effectiveness of our Constitution in question. In a time when the Citizens of our Republic are not only not being accurately informed about what is taking place around them but are very often misinformed, mislead and manipulated, the LAST THING we should consider doing is altering fundamental principals upon which this document is based.

Long before we can consider making ANY CHANGES to the Constitution of the United States, we must see to it that the protections and provisions within it now are effectively in place. Clearly that is not our current situation. Many holding high Office do not represent the best interests of the American People, much less the Constitution. Their actions betray their words and yet they are to us as if unassailable.

Until such persons can be held accountable to the Will of The People under the laws of the Constitution as it now stands, no one advocating a fundamental change in its structure should be trusted.

So, exactly which member of Hamas do you want for President?

I believe that if a person has the drive, ability and ideas to become President of the United States he/she should be allowed to TRY.

and not so soon. I knew the amendment would be offered up at some point so that Arnie might have his chance - matter of fact, I told my wife that last night. However, I qualified it by saying that he would have to have something suggesting success in CA. Cheee-rist, he ain't even been crowned by Diebold yet and Hatch is whoring around trying to subvert democracy with this pathetic example of Hitler youth on steroids.

This daughter of a WWII vet will not tolerate the possibility of Ahnold becoming President. There are numerous reasons, among them behavior, intellect (or lack thereof), and past history.

The President is the one office where I believe the holder must have the United States as his or her birth country. This goes for ALL foreign countries.

Most first generation immigrants still retain at least a small amount of loyalty to their birth countries. I see no problem with this, except in the one most powerful office, the Presidency.

Governors cannot go to war. Presidents can.

Although at one time in the not-too-distant past, Germany made the mistake of rallying behind a certain Austrian-born Chancellor.

And how much sympathy did he grant Bill Clinton??

It made me curious enough to do some digging. I didn’t deep enough, but I did find this:

”They (founding fathers) probably recognized that many European kings weren't born in the lands they ruled, and wanted to make the presidency a distinct office. They also may have believed that the country's chief elected official needed to possess an inborn sense of American culture.”

I think that’s reasonable thinking on their part looking at natural-born Prussians winding up on the throne of England, especially where there are foreign alliances with the French and Germans (not to mention Spain) against them. I think it is, to a degree, still true today. Any of your family members (like mine) just roll their eyes to the back of their skulls when the parents start yakking about “the old country”? My Scottish-born mother does this at 93, and she’s been living in the US for 80 years! (At least she’s a dem.)

Now, guess where I found the above quote? The National Review! <http://www.nationalreview.com/daily/nr070901.shtml>

Then, the National Review reveals the real reason why they think there should be an amendment, and it has nothing to do with Justice:

“The political case for the amendment is obvious: If the GOP wants to expand its reach among Hispanics and Asian Americans, this amendment beats capitulating on Vieques. Imagine Bush mentioning the amendment everywhere he goes; suddenly it becomes the Bush Amendment. And it operates with great symbolic power, as a kind of minor successor to the 15th Amendment (giving blacks the vote) and the 19th Amendment (women's suffrage). It becomes a tool of inclusion, more useful than 1,000 political conventions like the one in Philadelphia. Bush wins even if the amendment - like most proposed amendments - doesn't get enacted.

So, it’s not the Hatch Amendment; it’s the Bush Amendment. Honorable men all.

...just in time to see Madeleine Albright or someone similar sworn in as president or vice president.