Community > Politics, Current News & Events

Topic: Article #2
adj4u Joined Sun 04/08/07 Posts: 21254	Sun 01/27/08 03:43 PM
Been more than awhile since Ive been on here posting so let me start back with this baby step; First the question originally was should the constitution be changed so that a foriegn born american may be allowed to run for president- my opinion is no. Do I have a well thought out reason to defend that opinion, no I dont. It just seems to me that every day we lose more of ourselves to the ideals and beliefs of what other people in other nations have. Im tired of people acting as though we should be less than the U.S. dont know what that has to do with the answer it just seems to me that we keep chipping away at what makes us US and it is hard to see it happen, and even harder to keep going on allowing it to happen all for the sake of being PC. religion, church and state, separation- does any of that even matter? and by the way some of you should probably go back and reread the constitution---where in it anywhere does it say that there should be a separation of church and state? I recall freedom of religion but not the other. cheers. lightly tiptoes back to the corner. doc i can agree but if you read my post (a couple ago) it says if citizen for 35 years why not the reason i say this is because i think most naturalized citizens (after that amount of time) probably care more about this country than most born here many have become way to lax in their RESPONSIBILITY of living in a so called free country how many liberties would you give up for a FALSE sense of security

Lordling Joined Mon 12/31/07 Posts: 536	Sun 01/27/08 03:46 PM
No, it shouldn't be changed. It was designed as a protection against a foreign power installing a "ringer" into office, and, in essence, taking over the reins of our government. It is not a perfect preventative measure, but it gives us some measure of assurance that someone with basic American values & loyalty will be elected. As we can see from the current administration, though, it doesn't always work out in our country's best interests.

symbelmyne Joined Mon 01/14/08 Posts: 5356	Sun 01/27/08 03:56 PM
No, it shouldn't be changed. It was designed as a protection against a foreign power installing a "ringer" into office, and, in essence, taking over the reins of our government. It is not a perfect preventative measure, but it gives us some measure of assurance that someone with basic American values & loyalty will be elected. As we can see from the current administration, though, it doesn't always work out in our country's best interests. just popping in, hello m'Lord...

armydoc4u Joined Sun 04/08/07 Posts: 1153	Sun 01/27/08 04:03 PM
ADJ I read it, I see what you're saying, I just think it is one more hit on our already chipped up country thats all. As an agnostic I dont do the church thing, but I also appreciate the "roots" and heritage of those who did suffer and endure to give us what we have or had. to trash the way this country was founded or the reasons I should say that most of the original imigrants came to america for the sake of "not offending" someone is stupid. plain ad simpe (not a dig at you adj). and REALLY is religion so prevalent in our country that we HAVE to immediately do away with it? is there a bible forced into your face at the police station or something? or lets do this for the sake of the devils advocate---- non religion is forced on the religious more than religion is forced on the non (my opinion) but I give to you "society" as a whole. take a walk to your nearest grocery store- can you walk though it and not have to hear someone cussing, see some scantly clad overweight girl belly buttoned pierced, be subject to pornographicesk covers on magazines while waiting to check out? beer signs, cigarette signs, hooters, strip joints, vegas. hell if any of these were in a country where true forced religion was who ever put them up would be stoned to death. state run religion with loud speaker systems that sound off five times a day every day informing you that it is your mandated time to pray, are we anywhere close to that? so I give you my first answer again, no, a foreign born person should not be allowed to run for president in my opinion. has nothing to do with religion. would someone not born here care more than those who were and are slowly deteriorating this country yes probably, but I've drawn my line in the sand as it were- and am mule headed enough to stand that ground til I stop breathing.

Lordling Joined Mon 12/31/07 Posts: 536	Sun 01/27/08 04:53 PM
No, it shouldn't be changed. It was designed as a protection against a foreign power installing a "ringer" into office, and, in essence, taking over the reins of our government. It is not a perfect preventative measure, but it gives us some measure of assurance that someone with basic American values & loyalty will be elected. As we can see from the current administration, though, it doesn't always work out in our country's best interests. just popping in, hello m'Lord... ...m'Lady

Monosyllabic♥Girl Joined Fri 12/28/07 Posts: 1222	Sun 01/27/08 09:47 PM
thanks for adding your opinions

leahmarie Joined Fri 12/28/07 Posts: 1482	Mon 01/28/08 12:00 AM Edited by leahmarie on Mon 01/28/08 12:01 AM
The Constitution came about because the founding fathers wanted to revise the Articles of Confederation in 1787. Instead of amending the Articles, the delegates drafted an entirely new frame of government, The Constitution. The result is the work of many great minds, including the point that the President must be American born. I GO ALONG WITH OUR FOUNDING FATHERS IN THE THINKING THAT OUR PRESIDENT SHOULD BE AMERICAN BORN, AND AGE 35.