« More Democratic Party Posters… | Home | Rebrand Democrat »
More On The Arnold Amendment
By Matt Margolis | November 22, 2004
Captain Ed has weighed in the Arnold Amendment after reading an article by William Safire. The argument most likely to be used to influence Americans to support the Arnold Amendment is the emotionally charged claim that the natural born citizen requirement for someone to occupy the presidency “creates two classes of citizens with unequal standing.”
Captain Ed, while sympathetic to that argument, also feels ” as the head of state, the President represents the country abroad, and I think that requiring that person to be native-born enhances the representative nature of the office.” A decent point.
I still take issue with the claim that the Constitution bar makes naturalized citizens “second-class citizens.”
If not being allowed the opportunity to run for President creates a “second-class” of citizens than one could say all the requirements for the presidency that bar a particular group from seeking the office does so as well.
Last month, Scott from Slant Point celebrated his 35th birthday. He marked the occasion with the announcement:
Today’s my birthday. Just yesterday I was a kid. Today I can run for President.
I do not think Scott felt like a second-class citizen for the 17 years he was legally old enough to vote for President, but not run for President. If the pro-Arnold Amendment advocates can charge that “you can’t choose where you are born” then what stops under-35 year olds from saying they couldn’t choose when they were born, and demand that anyone legally old enough to vote should be permitted to run for President.
Certainly, anyone can attain the age of 35 years – regardless of what country you were born in. However, I have yet to see the Arnold Amendment advocates claim that citizens under 35 years of age have second-class citizenship despite the fact that between the ages of 18 and 35 one could serve two full terms as President.
I am by no means advocating removing the age requirement or the natural born citizenship requirement. Yet, we should take a look at what the requirements are and understand the greater purpose they serve. This can be applied to other things as well.
Requirements and restrictions prevent certain people from being legally allowed to drive, buy cigarettes, buy alcohol, join certain clubs, or go to certain schools. Such barriers exist for the greater good and protection of the masses… they are not meant to broken or changed for a select few who would “benefit” from the rule being changed.
UPDATE: Patrick Ruffini offers a FAQ on the proposed amendment… I still disagree with his position… but hey, the Republican Party actually tolerates diversity of opinions.. unlike other political parties which shall remain nameless..
Topics: General |
Related Posts:
November 22nd, 2004 at 1:44 pm
Instead of “Arnold Amendment” I call it “Soros Amendment.”
November 22nd, 2004 at 10:31 pm
Looking at the blue vs red map – I think its time for a constitutional convention. Each state gets an equal voice. We can decide about guns, abortion, how our government should be structured, how much God and religion will be acceptable – EVERYTHING.