[olePigeon]

Suppose Schwarzenegger got a seat in the Congress, then worked his way up to Speaker of the House. Then the President and Vice President were removed in some way... since he wasn't born in the USA, would they just skip him? Or would he still become president?

Any politics majors care to answer?

[Dork.]

I'm no politics major, but I know the answer. They would just skip him.

Madeline Albright was not born on US Soil, and she has said that she was never included in succession planning while she was Secretary of State.

Roger Peng's Other Homepage: Madeleine Albright mystery solved

I predict that this thread will succeed in getting moved to the Pol Lounge, though....

[scaught]

Schwarzenegger is a nazi sympathizer with a poor ecological related issues voting record who has political and financial ties to oil baron kuwaiti royalty.

NOW it's getting moved to the pol lounge....

[Dork.]

You could have just cut to the chase and said he's a Republican....

[0157988944]

lolz.

[MacosNerd]

Originally Posted by scaught 

Schwarzenegger is a nazi sympathizer

NO HE'S NOT!!!!

His Dad WAS a nazi

btw I hope that the move to amend the constitution to allow naturalized citizens fails, I'll be voting against that if it ever comes up. There's no way I'm voting for a nazi sympathizer

[- - e r i k - -]

I thought this was going to be about the line of succession to the British Throne. Poor Franziska Wassmann, I don't fancy her chances.

[ghporter]

Since Arnold was not born in the U.S., he CANNOT succeed to the presidency. He might step down to allow a chosen successor for his seat to move up to the Oval Office, but HE cannot take the office. He would simply be skipped, as if his seat was vacant.

BTW, when Arnold's dad chose to become a Nazi, it was in a period when it was "highly encouraged" to be a party member-as in not getting your ass kicked, not getting fired, etc. It's important to note the details of a person's party membership, especially from our rather comfortable seats.

[scaught]

^
Arnold doesn't have to excuse his father's actions.

The current pope is the same way.
I don't know if I buy it. People expect more out of people in positions of leadership and power than to just have gone along with it.

[MacosNerd]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

BTW, when Arnold's dad chose to become a Nazi, it was in a period when it was "highly encouraged" to be a party member-as in not getting your ass kicked, not getting fired, etc. It's important to note the details of a person's party membership, especially from our rather comfortable seats.

True enough, but he not only signed up as a Nazi but as a SA, i.e., brownshirt/Storm trooper,.Plus he was a high ranking official, not the sort of thing you find when someone signs up because of peer pressure or out of fear of losing your job

[design219]

Originally Posted by MacosNerd 

I hope that the move to amend the constitution to allow naturalized citizens fails, I'll be voting against that if it ever comes up.

I have two nieces that were adopted and brought to this country when they were less than two years old. They could make great presidents someday if they were ever given the right.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

BTW, when Arnold's dad chose to become a Nazi, it was in a period when it was "highly encouraged" to be a party member-as in not getting your ass kicked, not getting fired, etc. It's important to note the details of a person's party membership, especially from our rather comfortable seats.

Didn't the Nuremberg trials dismantle the whole "I was only following orders" argument? It would seem peer-pressure is even a worse defence than that.

Not that Arnold has to take responsibility for his dad's action though. "Sins of the father" etc

[bradoesch]

United States presidential line of succession - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Ozmodiar]

There are currently two cabinet members who are ineligible for Office should a catastrophe strike and they need to dip that deep into the line of succession. bradoesch's link has more information.

[MacosNerd]

Originally Posted by design219 

I have two nieces that were adopted and brought to this country when they were less than two years old. They could make great presidents someday if they were ever given the right.

They can't and probably won't The founding fathers put that in the constitution for a reason and as far as I can see that reason has not changed. You cannot be a naturalized citizen if you want to be the president.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Didn't the Nuremberg trials dismantle the whole "I was only following orders" argument? It would seem peer-pressure is even a worse defence than that.

Not that Arnold has to take responsibility for his dad's action though. "Sins of the father" etc

"Being a party member" is not the same as committing a war crime. LOTS of people were party members and did so only to protect themselves and their families. Just being a member did not mean anything more than a person blended in. It wasn't some big brainwashing thing, nor was it that every party member had to do something dastardly.

As for his being in the SA, the important question about that would be when? A "high ranking official" that joined and moved up after the Nazi takeover would be far less heinous than one who joined during the rabble rousing that long preceded the Germans coming over the border. I do not know any details about Dad's history, particularly in this, but the automatic assumption that someone with a party membership and a job like being an official in the SA meant that he stomped puppies or something is just plain wrong. How would YOU have managed in those times?

[design219]

Originally Posted by MacosNerd 

The founding fathers put that in the constitution for a reason and as far as I can see that reason has not changed. You cannot be a naturalized citizen if you want to be the president.

I don't think the founding fathers ever considered international adoption. The world changes, and governments need to change with it. My nieces are 100% American. They just spent the first few months of their lives in another country, and not by their choice.

[andi*pandi]

I think that clause is meant to protect the US from foreign interests infiltrating the highest office. Or something.

Although it brings up the question, when was that clause made? Because none of the early presidents were born on "officially american" soil.

[MacosNerd]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

" How would YOU have managed in those times?

Since it was quite evident and the Nazi's really didn't hide the fact that they were anti-semantic, they placed people with physical, or mental issues in work camps, nearly wiped out the gypsie population I probably would not have joined them. Yes that would have repercussions. By joining them, he aligned himself with their doctrine and agreed with them. Many other germans also decided that (for a variety of reasons) chose not to join the nazi party. making execuses that he needed to do it, to get along is really a bogus execuse. Besides wrong is wrong and they were wrong. Too many people took a blind eye to them. I don't mean germans, everyone, including the US, and europe.

From what I've read, and what I pulled in from history classes, the SA were pretty violent and a nasty group of people. Its hard to imagine that someone could rise to a leadership position in that area and not be involved in their vile and evil deeds.

[Dork.]

Fun Fact: John McCain was not born in any of the 50 states. He was born in the Panama Canal Zone, which isn't even a US Territory anymore, But it was at the time, and his parents were both US Citizens, so there you go.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

Although it brings up the question, when was that clause made? Because none of the early presidents were born on "officially american" soil.

The relevant clause in the 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.

So, people who were already citizens of the first government under the Articles of Confederation were grandfathered in.

[MacosNerd]

Originally Posted by design219 

I don't think the founding fathers ever considered international adoption. The world changes, and governments need to change with it. My nieces are 100% American. They just spent the first few months of their lives in another country, and not by their choice.

Probably not, but that does not change the fact that the reason is in there is to ensure national security and avoid foreign meddling. Those issues are still issues in this country today, probably more of an issue in the 21st century then back then.

[peeb]

He's a Republican. The only reason Dems assume he could not be President is 'some piece of paper'. Republicans have shown such contempt for the Constitution, I would not expect this to stop them installing Arny if they want.

[design219]

Originally Posted by MacosNerd 

Probably not, but that does not change the fact that the reason is in there is to ensure national security and avoid foreign meddling. Those issues are still issues in this country today, probably more of an issue in the 21st century then back then.

No, I'd have to disagree. It's less of an issue today than 200 years ago. This is why we have democratic elections. Americans are never going to vote for a president that has foreign interests above ours.

[peeb]

Foreign influence is every bit as much of an issue today as 200 years ago, the difference now is that elections are fought and won with corporate media, which may or may not be acting in the interests of US citizens. Think about the influence that NewsCorp has, and whether you can imagine a scenario where their interests might not be those of the US people.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by MacosNerd 

True enough, but he not only signed up as a Nazi but as a SA, i.e., brownshirt/Storm trooper,.Plus he was a high ranking official, not the sort of thing you find when someone signs up because of peer pressure or out of fear of losing your job

I don't care if his father was Hitler himself, Arnold isn't responsible for his father's actions. Let's debate the works and abilities of the individual, not their ancestors.

[MacosNerd]

Originally Posted by design219 

No, I'd have to disagree. It's less of an issue today than 200 years ago.

Actually it is even more important today then 200 hundred years ago. Thanks to technology the world is a much smaller place, and we are dealing with foreign issues that our founding fathers could never imagine. Bottom line, life in the 21st century is much more complicated, so isn't foreign affairs, that being the case its even more important not to water down our constitution.

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by peeb 

He's a Republican. The only reason Dems assume he could not be President is 'some piece of paper'. Republicans have shown such contempt for the Constitution, I would not expect this to stop them installing Arny if they want.

You are so full of crap. It is the Democrats that have nothing but pure disdain for the Constitution.

Besides, Arnold has lost his backing from a lot of Republicans since he has gone left wing. There is no way I'd ever vote for him for any office, he'll be switching parties very soon.

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

You are so full of crap. It is the Democrats that have nothing but pure distain for the Constitution.

That's rich, considering the current Republican President has essentially ignored the Constitution and the rights of American Citizens in the guise of protecting us from "terrorists".

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa 

That's rich, considering the current Republican President has essentially ignored the Constitution and the rights of American Citizens in the guise of protecting us from "terrorists".

This is total BS. Give ONE single detailed specific example that is NOT BS.

[0157988944]

I'll play: Wiretapping, Torture...

Now you try. Give detailed examples of your side:

the Democrats that have nothing but pure distain for the Constitution.

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by adamfishercox 

I'll play: Wiretapping, Torture...

:

You failed. Neither one is true. I said specific. Not general BS.


Something like:

Recently, the new democrat congress has arbitrarily changed the nature of certain attendees to the floor of the congress. Not satisfied that they have the majority in numbers for their side, democrats have passed bogus legislation that authorizes ‘delegates’ to sit on the floor of the congress and to even attend committee meetings (and sometimes vote in those meetings). Who and what are delegates? Well, the various territories of the United States do not have representatives (Article One of the Constitution declares that all representatives come from the various states). Delegates, then, are persons selected to appear on behalf of U.S. territores – e.g. Guam, Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, and a couple of other U.S. territories. These delegates are mostly ceremonial, but each serves an important function in seeing to the needs of these territories and the interests of the United States. However, they are not representatives as defined by the Constitution. Again, democrats want more power and so they try to enhance their numbers in defiance and disrespect of the Founding Fathers’ most basic tenet of a republican form of government.

[Buckaroo]

Here's another one:

Democrats don’t believe that the commander in chief should have the authority to develop and implement military strategy. According to the Constitution, Article Two, there is only one commander-in-chief, and he (or she) is the President of the United States. This power and function is bedrock, fundamental. But, alas! Democrats just don’t get it. Since the mid-term elections of 2006, the democrats have sponsored more than a dozen resolutions in an effort to interfere, obstruct, alter, and, ultimately, defeat the efforts of the duly elected commander in chief – each attempt has failed miserably. The President was given full authority to initiate and deploy military forces to defeat and destroy enemies of the United States That power is not a shared power, it is plenary in the President. Period. However, since the war in Iraq has become somewhat intractable and, yes, tough, the democrats now want to wimp out (much like they did in the Vietnam conflict back in my college and law school days. The democrats discovered back in the ‘70’s, as they know now that the only means of affecting the president’s war powers authority is through the purse – funding the war. Yet, unlike yesterday, this congress and these democrats have misjudged the American people – Americans don’t like cutting and running, Americans don’t like the taste of the legacy of Vietnam, Americans always win (with republican leadership, by the way). So, the democrat congress and senate are frustrated and flummoxed – that constitution stands in their way, again.

[Buckaroo]

Democrats love to bend and break the rules. Whenever a Democrat bends or breaks a rule, all of the scum Democrats run to their defense. When ever a Republican breaks a rule, all the Republicans ask for his resignation.

A big difference in attitudes and beliefs.

[Dork.]

RE: yout first post, I'll call BS on you for that, Buckaroo. There's nothing in the Constitution that dictates how either house of Congress ought to organize itself. If the current House leadership wants to give more exposure to Delegates, the leadership has the right to let them do whatever they (the leadership) want them to, short of voting on legislation.

I thought you were going to bring up Kelo vs. New London, but those weren't technically Democrats, just the Liberal wing of the Supreme Court (some of whom were nominated by Republican presidents....)

Edit: Your second post says absolutely nothing substantive.

[- - e r i k - -]

Did the shіtification of this thread coincide with the move to the pol/war hell, or did it happen before?

[0157988944]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

Here's another one:

BS on this, not enough words, so obviously you weren't specific. Oh, and I deny that this ever happened. SO you're wrong.

[tie]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

You failed. Neither one is true. I said specific. Not general BS.

I guess you are arguing that torture is constitutional?

[Buckaroo]

Originally Posted by tie 

I guess you are arguing that torture is constitutional?

There is NO, ZERO, NADA US Citizens being tortured anywhere in the US, or anywhere for that matter.

[0157988944]

Guantanamo, my friend. Abu Ghraib. The US isn't the only thing that exists.

[- - e r i k - -]

I think he was talking about torturing non-US Citizens being ok

[0157988944]

Ah!

[Dork.]

And we definitely can't torture non-US citizens by making them President.

There! We're back on topic now.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

There is NO, ZERO, NADA US Citizens being tortured anywhere in the US, or anywhere for that matter.

The constitution prohibits torture per se, not torture of Americans.

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally Posted by Buckaroo 

There is NO, ZERO, NADA US Citizens being tortured anywhere in the US, or anywhere for that matter.

Prove it. You believe this only because the Bush Administration said it.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa 

Prove it. You believe this only because the Bush Administration said it.

It's true - here's why - Bush can strip the citizenship rights from any US citizen, so they are not US citizens at the point they are tortured.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by peeb 

It's true - here's why - Bush can strip the citizenship rights from any US citizen, so they are not US citizens at the point they are tortured.

Wouldn't there be a public record of this?

[peeb]

Not any more.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Not any more.

Do you have any substantiation for this at all? Or are you just guessing?

[peeb]

Just guessing based on the Bush Regime's behavior.

The point is that it doesn't matter whether someone is a citizen - the Constitution prohibits torture.