"Tell Your Friends 2 Amend!" Oh, and "Give 10 to Amend!" (barf)

August 14, 2005 3:24 AM

Amend for Arnold & Jen (found on linkfilter) is a site trying to start up one of them "grassroots movements" to amend the Constitution of the United States, in order to allow naturalized citizens, those who were not born in the U.S. but have since become citizens, the possibility of holding the office of President. But not just out of a sense of social justice; primarily, it's to clear the way for an Arnold Schwarzenegger presidential campaign. (Or one for Jennifer Granholm... heh, whoever that is!)

It should be noted, for whatever it's worth, that Wikipedia's entry for Granholm states that she cares "not a whit" for running for president. Of special note are the slogans the AFA (gasp, not AFA&J?!?!) people cooked up to advance their cause, "Amend US," "Give 10 to Amend," and "Tell Your Friends 2 Amend." Because let's face it: if you voted for ol' Schwarzy, you're probably a little more susceptible to catchphrases than the average bear, hm? Oh I'm know I'm gonna catch it for that one.
posted by JHarris (43 comments total)

Absolutely not you can't have an American President with sentimental thoughts about his motherland. Its the same reason you can't be president with a dual citizenship it is a conflict of interest.
posted by Rubbstone at 4:22 AM on August 14, 2005

I think you're mistaken about there being a formal ban on dual citizenship (which Schwarzenegger has, with Austria) as a presidency requirement.

While I'm not a fan of Schwarzenegger's governatorship, I think allowing citizens who've been naturalized for 35 years (i.e. the same length of time US-born citizens have to have been US citizens,) and have held no other citizenship during that time, sounds pretty reasonable. (Whoops, just excluded myself.)

But I'm not at all sure it's worth amending the Constitution for, and I'm appalled by the idea of amending the Constitution to grease the wheels for a specific candidate.
posted by Zed_Lopez at 4:46 AM on August 14, 2005

So why has the proposed amendment been stuck in limbo for 2 years? Um..Rubstone's argument isn't really a serious block to this is it? I'm genuinely curious and I have no stake.
posted by peacay at 4:48 AM on August 14, 2005

I guess since we don't make good presidential candidates domestically anymore, we'll have to start importing them.
posted by psmealey at 5:33 AM on August 14, 2005

To be honet with you I can't find any internet evidence that clearly supports my assertion. I also can't find any that clearly derides it either. It was told to me by my instructor in my AP class and I trust his knowledge of politics. You, however, need not have the same confidence.

I think the reason this thing has been in limbo so long is A. Amending the consitution is hard B. Americans aren't really extremely interested in voting for the people this amendment is supposed to help .

I honestly think that it is a practical nessecity that the president of the United States be not have any exterior influences in decideding what is best for America. Let me give you a test case dealing not with law but custom. The heads of other states are not. If the President of the US had dual citizenship with Britain does he kneel before the Queen? Can you see the analgous legal issues? Or am I just being paranoid?
posted by Rubbstone at 5:37 AM on August 14, 2005

Rubbstone writes "it is a practical nessecity that the president of the United States be not have any exterior influences in decideding what is best for America"

You don't really think that do you? Or you mean like residual allegiance to their birth country? But it's a bit of a silly argument, POTUS being influenced by anyone or anything that has a significant enough impact/influence on American interests no?
posted by peacay at 5:46 AM on August 14, 2005

Look at his poll numbers. Schwarzenegger won't win re-election in California, let alone the presidency.
posted by crank at 5:48 AM on August 14, 2005

Well gosh, as long as we're changing the Constitution to enable candidacies of specific individuals I have a modest addition to make: allow Presidents to run for more then two terms, too. Can you IMAGINE the fun if we had an Arnold Schwarzenegger vs. Bill Clinton race? The debates would be sooooo much fun, as those two kibbitzed and teased each other. (And putting aside their respective politics, for a moment, they're inarguably two of the smartest people in political life today.) I would, however, want to keep the womenfolk indoors whenever either one's campaign train came to town...
posted by twsf at 6:02 AM on August 14, 2005

To be honet with you I can't find any internet evidence that clearly supports my assertion. I also can't find any that clearly derides it either.

Similarly, I can't find any Internet evidence that 2 + 2 = 3, but I can't find any that clearly rejects it either. It's obviously a possibility.

That said, I'm not really for dual citizens as president. Living in the U.S. for 35 years is an interesting idea, and in the end, the people are sovereign, so why limit their choices. But I really don't care enough about this to support this initiative.
posted by grouse at 6:09 AM on August 14, 2005

From memory, the requirement to be President is that you be a natural-born citizen (which I believe means born within the borders of the United States, although that could be wrong), and be 35 years of age. That's it. As far as I know, you can collect foreign citizenships like people collect ties without affecting your eligibility.
posted by Malor at 6:25 AM on August 14, 2005

To me, this seems like the right amendment in recognizing that naturalized citizens can easily have a stake in politics, proposed for the wrong reason of advancing the career of a single politician. I've never really been fond of that particular provision of the constitution.

I do see an issue in regards to dual citizenship. But I think requriring sole U.S. citizenship for the Chief Executive is less problematic than saying immigrants can't be president.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 7:14 AM on August 14, 2005

I think that naturalized citizens should be eligible for the presidency. Let's pass the amendment now, and have it take effect in 2040. Fair?
posted by Faint of Butt at 7:33 AM on August 14, 2005

twsf: You do realize that raises the possibility of a third term for W as well, no?
posted by alumshubby at 7:54 AM on August 14, 2005

I'm not really for the amendment, though the 35 year wait period is an interesting variant.
The best counter to this amendment is not to fight it, but to say "hell yeah, let's get George Soros on the ticket."
Watch the amendment back tracking then ...
posted by forforf at 7:58 AM on August 14, 2005

if you voted for ol' Schwarzy, you're probably a little more susceptible to catchphrases than the average bear, hm? Oh I'm know I'm gonna catch it for that one.

Indeed you are -- the approved nickname is Ahh-nold.

alumshubby: compare Clinton's favorable ratings when he left office to Bush's today. There'd be no contest.
posted by Aknaton at 8:00 AM on August 14, 2005

I guess since we don't make good presidential candidates domestically anymore, we'll have to start importing them.

Outsourcing President-raising... very interesting from many different perspectives...

So what's wrong with America then if it can't produce it's own best leadership? Too soft, fat, lazy, and spoiled? (Unlike Arnie!) Ouch.

Of course the Presidency is less about leadership than it is about electability. The Pres's primary job function is to get elected so all the people associated with him can actually run things. This is why the current guy was selected by his party, why he can be on vacation all the time, and why there's talk of Arnie doing the job.

btw, Faint of Butt - exactly in any case.
posted by scheptech at 8:09 AM on August 14, 2005

twsf: Did you just say Schwarzenegger is inarguably one of the politically smartest people we've got? How so? Pete Wilson's people found a way to slip him into office and he's subsequently squandered all of his political goodwill. If he manages to get re-elected despite his terrible poll numbers, maybe I'd agree with you -- but in that case, the same thing could be said about Gray Davis.
posted by aaronetc at 8:09 AM on August 14, 2005

I actually do support this amedment, and not just because I'd love to see the Gropenfuhrer humiliated in a national election.

There are so few qualified candidates, why limit the field arbitrarily? I'm not a fan of Madelaine Albright, but it's ridiculous to say she is less dependable because she was a war refugee as a child. The same goes for Kissenger. You really can't accuse him of being pro-Austrian, and not loyal to the accumulation of raw power by the government of the United States.

The 35 year residency requirement seems fair to me.
posted by gesamtkunstwerk at 8:26 AM on August 14, 2005

Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the United States Constitution:

"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
posted by peacay at 8:54 AM on August 14, 2005

peacay: So basically, what that boils down to is:
1: born a U.S. citizen
2: lived in the U.S. during the American Revolution.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 9:08 AM on August 14, 2005

Reanimate Reagan?
posted by peacay at 9:25 AM on August 14, 2005

In other words, I've suspected for a long time that the rules were set up to give the existing elite a lock on power.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 9:26 AM on August 14, 2005

If Arnold Schwartznegger is the best possible potential President for the United States, I'll eat my own balls.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:47 AM on August 14, 2005

Let's amend the Constitution so that only Arnold Schwarzenegger can run for president.

That would make Diebold's job easier... ARNOLD WINS AGAIN!
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 10:23 AM on August 14, 2005

It's dumb and anti-democratic to have a residency requirement for the President but not any other elected office. It sets the position above all others in a way that smacks of monarchy, which is ironic given the (now utterly outdated) anti-monarchy politics behind the original rule.

Anyone who truly believes in a democratic meritocracy should be appalled at such a horridly arbitrary law.
posted by mediareport at 10:43 AM on August 14, 2005

I completely agree with Faint of Butt.
posted by kirkaracha at 10:50 AM on August 14, 2005

I'm not a tinfoil-hat guy, but I find it interesting that this campaign has just kicked into high gear right after Canadian-Ameircan dual-citizen Peter Jennings died. Hey, but Shatner's still eligable, right?
posted by wendell at 11:29 AM on August 14, 2005

BTW, these slogans sound like something the late Johnnie Cochran would've used in court: "If he's your friend, you must amend!"
posted by wendell at 11:33 AM on August 14, 2005

There are so few qualified candidates, why limit the field arbitrarily? I'm not a fan of Madelaine Albright, but it's ridiculous to say she is less dependable because she was a war refugee as a child.

Really is it? So its totally off kilter to think that a former refugee from communism in the balkans might have a small problem with decisions involving the administration of an ex- KGB agent(Vladimir Putin).

"There are enough qualified Americans to do that job. OUr immigration policy is generous enough. Its only one job"-Ma (Naturalized citizen)


Similarly, I can't find any Internet evidence that 2 + 2 = 3, but I can't find any that clearly rejects it either. It's obviously a possibility.

Clearly you missed google calculator... Or maybe you are thinking in terms of abstract algebra where one vacuous truth leads that 0=1 in which case 2+2=3. In either case I provided my source, my civics course, and said belive if you think I'm believable. I thought that was enough clearly people are far more asinine than I suspected.
posted by Rubbstone at 11:52 AM on August 14, 2005

Rubbstone: Really is it? So its totally off kilter to think that a former refugee from communism in the balkans might have a small problem with decisions involving the administration of an ex- KGB agent(Vladimir Putin).

I guess I fail to see how this conflict of interest would be any more of a problem than say, JFK's (and later Kerry's) Catholicism, or Bush's ties to the oil industry. First-generation Americans frequently have significant ties to the country of their parents as well, frequently more than recent immigrants. To put Albright's experience in perspective, she has lived in the U.S. since she was 11, and took an oath of citizenship at age 20.

At any rate, we have a political system for deciding which conflicts of interest are problematic, and which conflicts of interest are benign. Why not put the question to the voters?
posted by KirkJobSluder at 12:24 PM on August 14, 2005

So its totally off kilter to think that a former refugee from communism in the balkans might have a small problem with decisions involving the administration of an ex- KGB agent (Vladimir Putin).

We already elected a guy who has let a personal vendetta effect our foreign policy (Saddam tried to kill his daddy), and his family has been in this country for several generations.

For better or for worse, we elect our officials for their subjectivity rather than their objectivity. Not saying that's wise, but the scenario you draw probably isn't a strong enough argument for amending this article in the Constitution.

As I understood it originally, the clause was inserted in order to specificially keep Alexander Hamilton (born in the West Indies) from running for President rather than a fear of candidate having undue loyalties to the British crown. Maybe it's time to change the Constitution, but not for Arnold's sake. That guy isn't qualified to be head dogcatcher in Ventura County.

Arrianna 2008?
posted by psmealey at 1:58 PM on August 14, 2005

Rubbstone, we're just asking that when posting comments to Metafilter, you take the minimal step of looking up the actual phrasing from the Constitution instead of talking out of your ass about what your AP prof said. Look how many comments in this thread are now about sorting out what was accurate and what was not ... in prior comments.

KirkJobSluder: I tend to agree with your last point, although I think it's unlikely this amendment will really go anywhere -- it's not like Arnie is really all that popular now that he's for real in politics, and you'd have to have someone like him to push it forward. As for the original wording, the loophole was there because many Revolutionary leaders were, in fact, born in Great Britain; and technically all Presidents before Martin Van Buren were born citizens of Britain.
posted by dhartung at 2:11 PM on August 14, 2005

Sort of a double. (Same topic, although a different link)
posted by MikeKD at 4:33 PM on August 14, 2005

psmealy: As I understood it originally, the clause was inserted in order to specificially keep Alexander Hamilton (born in the West Indies) from running for President rather than a fear of candidate having undue loyalties to the British crown.

Hamilton, having been the instigator of the New York demonstrations in 1776, would have certainly met the residency requirements by the time the constitution was ratified.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 5:12 PM on August 14, 2005

Thanks KJS... that must have been a factoid that I picked up in US History class in the 11th grade, and had always assumed it to be true or never bothered to RTF Constitution to verify it, as dhartung suggests above.
posted by psmealey at 5:28 PM on August 14, 2005

MikeKD:
I do not consider it a duplicate. I would still have posted it if I had been aware of that link, since the thrust of the post is not the general effort to amend the constitution. The thrust is a look at this organization (Amend For Arnold And Jen), their efforts to gain public support (lame slogans), their ultimate purpose (a Schwarzenegger presidential campaign), and their laughable attempts to mask that purpose (by lumping in someone who stated she has no interest in running).
posted by JHarris at 6:08 PM on August 14, 2005

Why not put the question to the voters?

Sure, under a voting system that offers a more reasonable guarantee of actually reflecting voter preference than electoral college intermediated plurality voting.

And while we're at it, why not allow 16 year olds to be president? There are some very smart 16 year olds -- certainly more intelligent than our current occupant of the oval office -- and voters can decide which conflicts of interest matter.

Seriously, I can only imagine voting for a foreign-born president if s/he were the most pristine of candidates. This is the freakin' Presidency, a disproportionately powerful office, not your right to buy food at the front door or not be beaten by bigots or receive student loans. And American public opinion, even when accurately assesed, isn't famous for its prescience and forsight. I want some hard rules in place that keeps people who might be problematic from taking the office, even if it hurts Arnold's or any other immigrants feelings. There's plenty to do with ones life in America besides become President. Ask Al Gore.
posted by namespan at 6:18 PM on August 14, 2005

I have two daughter adopted from China who would like to know they could be president - should they ever wish. They, and the thousands of other kids adopted from other countries and living in the United States as US citizens should have the chance to run for president - and under the current rules they don't.
posted by trii at 6:51 PM on August 14, 2005

There should be different rules for people who came here as children. It's ludicrous that anybody would think that a candidate who arrived in the US at the age of two is going to be less patriotic than one who was born here.
posted by watsondog at 6:54 PM on August 14, 2005

Hey noones mentioned this but I think its probably just as likely that that they would change the rule the other way.
Make it so that only children of former Presidents could be president.


I mean, the "best" choice in the whole country was W?
come on, the USA is just yearning for a monarchy.
posted by Iax at 7:08 PM on August 14, 2005

namespan:
There's plenty to do with ones life in America besides become President. Ask Al Gore.

Hell, ask Jimmy Carter, who in the eyes of public opinion at least has been a much more successful ex-president as president.


trii:
I have two daughter adopted from China who would like to know they could be president - should they ever wish.

Because couldn't we all use more character assassination, mudslinging, and corporate whoredom in our lives?


watsondog:
There should be different rules for people who came here as children. It's ludicrous that anybody would think that a candidate who arrived in the US at the age of two is going to be less patriotic than one who was born here.

If you think that's crazy... I mean, I barely even want to mention this, it's so weird... it's almost beyond belief, it's changed now of course, but... well let's just say, try doing a web search for the words "Constitution" and "three-fifths" one of these days and prepare to be shocked.


Finally, Iax:
I mean, the "best" choice in the whole country was W?
come on, the USA is just yearning for a monarchy.

.......okay, now I'm depressed.
posted by JHarris at 10:29 PM on August 14, 2005

Rubbstone, we're just asking that when posting comments to Metafilter, you take the minimal step of looking up the actual phrasing from the Constitution instead of talking out of your ass about what your AP proof said. Look how many comments in this thread are now about sorting out what was accurate and what was not ... in prior comments.
If only that phrasing was decisive. It is very much opaque. Dual citizenship didn't exist then because if you were naturalized anywhere you lost tour citizenship of origin . The people conclude the question(SCOTUS)have significant leeway in deciding the question. Do they want too affirm strict or loose construction. There has never even been case law on US citizens born outside the US running for the presidency. The issue is by no means decided by that passage.

Yeah, I really did derail this thread yup sure did even though my second post is 5 posts in. I must have confused several thousand lurkers. THey must have never come back to look again between when this post got its 5th post and its 41st post. I absolutely belive that is what happened.
posted by Rubbstone at 1:30 AM on August 15, 2005

Hey, I came here when I was 6. You're telling me you don't want me to be President? I'm hurt.
posted by vodkadin at 12:05 PM on August 15, 2005