It's a little cash and a constitutional amendment away:

http://www.firstcoastnews.com/politics/articles/2002-12-01/images/ap_kerry_lg.jpg

VS

http://www.theadvocates.org/celebrities/jesse-ventura.jpg

VS

http://i.cnn.net/cnn/2004/WORLD/americas/01/29/arnie.plea.ap/vert.arnold.points.jpg

Arnold would mop the floor with anyone except Rudy G.

Arnold is Euro trash ;) :p

He's not allowed to run for Pres.

Arnold is Euro trash ;) :p

He's not allowed to run for Pres.



http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/28/60minutes/main652046.shtml

ALSO:

http://infowars.com/print/nwo/arnold_foreign_pres_cnn.htm

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Arnold Schwarzenegger, making his Sunday talk show debut as governor, said that he and other foreign-born citizens should be eligible to run for the White House and that President Bush can carry California in November if he does more to help the state.

The Austrian-born former bodybuilder, in the capital for his first meeting with fellow governors, said he has not thought about running for president. The Constitution says only natural-born U.S. citizens are eligible for the country's highest office.

The Republican governor said anyone who has been a U.S. citizen for at least 20 years -- as he has -- should "absolutely" be able to seek the presidency. A constitutional amendment proposed by Sen. Orrin Hatch, a Utah Republican, would make that possible.

"There are so many people in this country that are now from overseas, that are immigrants, that are doing such a terrific job with their work, bringing businesses here, that there's no reason why not," said Schwarzenegger, who became a U.S. citizen in 1983.

"Look at the kind of contribution that people like Henry Kissinger have made, Madeleine Albright," he said, referring to two former secretaries of state who were born in Europe.

Schwarzenegger said on NBC's "Meet the Press" that he has been too busy with California's problems to contemplate a future run for the White House. "I have no idea, I haven't thought about that at all," he said.

Schwarzenegger reaffirmed his opposition to the gay marriages that are taking place in San Francisco. He said Mayor Gavin Newsom's refusal to obey the state's law against same-sex marriages could set a bad precedent. ( Full story )

Schwarzenegger, who was sworn in November 17 after winning a special election to replace recalled Democratic Gov. Gray Davis, is making his first visit to Washington since taking office.

He is attending the winter meeting of the National Governors Association. State leaders were to meet with Bush at the White House on Monday.

Schwarzenegger campaigned during last year's recall election on a pledge to be "the Collectinator" -- a play on his role in the "Terminator" movies -- and get more money for California from the federal government. Bush's budget, however, did little to help the state.

Schwarzenegger said he did not feel let down by the president and said Bush can win California in November -- if he does more to help the state financially. Bush lost California by 1.3 million votes to Democrat Al Gore in 2000.

"I think it is totally directly related to how much he will do for our state, there's no two ways about it," Schwarzenegger said. "Because Californian people are like a mirror, you know that what you do for them they will do back for you," Schwarzenegger said.

"If the federal government does great things for California this year I think there's no two ways about it, that President Bush can have California, he can be elected, I'm absolutely convinced of that."

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/10/01/MNGP0927TG1.DTL

Congress to consider easing presidential eligibility
Naturalized citizens would be able to hold highest office
Edward Epstein, Chronicle Washington Bureau

Friday, October 1, 2004

Washington -- The constitutional amendment that could allow Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to run for president starts making its uncertain way through Congress on Tuesday.

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, who first introduced the amendment in July 2003 -- before Schwarzenegger announced on Aug. 6. of that year that he would run in the recall election against then-Gov. Gray Davis -- has scheduled the first hearing on the proposed amendment Tuesday in the Judiciary Committee that he chairs. The committee will hear testimony but won't take a vote.

Hatch's amendment calls for changing the Constitution's current provision, spelled out in Article 2 Section 1. Drafted in 1787, it says that only natural-born Americans at least 35 years old who have lived in the country for 14 years can serve as president or vice president.

The Utah senator's proposed amendment calls for allowing people who have been naturalized citizens for at least 20 years to run for and serve as president. The Austrian-born Schwarzenegger, who has endorsed the idea of changing the Constitution, became a U.S. citizen in 1983 after coming to the United States in 1968.

Proposals for changing the Constitution have also been made in the House. The latest, introduced in September by Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Huntington Beach, also includes the 20-year period. Others set a 35-year requirement. But none of the House proposals has come up for a hearing.

Support for amending the Constitution to allow naturalized citizens to serve as president came Thursday from House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco.

"I have long thought that we could revisit that issue,'' Pelosi told reporters.

But she said she thought the 20-year period of citizenship before a person would become eligible might be the wrong approach. Instead, she suggested the measure should be the length of residency in the country, coupled with a person becoming a citizen during that period.

"I think there has to be a reasonable length of time that the person has resided in the country, and 20 years, I don't think that is long enough," Pelosi said. "It takes some people that long to get their Ph.D. I think you do have to go a little longer to be president of the United States.''

"I think the 35-year provision probably makes more sense, that somebody is raised in our country or has lived here long enough to have an appreciation for the culture and the beautiful diversity of our country to serve as our president,'' she added.

Opposition came from Rep. Tom Lantos, D-San Mateo, who was born in Budapest, Hungary, arrived in this country in 1947 and became a citizen in 1952. "I am irrevocably opposed. Our Constitution should only be amended for the most pressing and substantive reasons. There are 250 million native-born Americans, and there ought to be enough talent among them to find someone to serve as president.

"But if there is a restoration of the Austro-Hungarian empire, I am ready to consider a joint candidacy with Arnold, provided I am on top of the ticket. ''

It is difficult to amend the Constitution, which has been done successfully only 17 times since the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution in 1791. It takes a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress and ratification by three-fourths of the states for an amendment to become law.

The current wording was put in the Constitution by the document's drafters because -- fresh from the war for independence from Britain's King George III -- they feared that a European prince could move to America, maneuver his way into the presidency and subvert democracy in favor of monarchy.

In several interviews, Schwarzenegger has endorsed an amendment that would allow him to run for president, without saying that he would undertake such a race.

http://www.deccanherald.com/deccanherald/mar232004/f7.asp

AT A GLANCE


Kennedy to back law for Schwarzenegger
Veteran Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy has said he would support a constitutional amendment that would enable his niece’s foreign-born husband, California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, to potentially run for President, reports AFP from Washington.

Kennedy’s niece, former journalist and Kennedy heiress Maria Shriver, is married to one of America’s most famous foreign-born citizens.Schwarzenegger, the former Hollywood strong man and star of the “Terminator” action films won election as California governor in November.

Schwarzenegger is currently barred from running for the highest political office in the land because foreign-born citizens are not permitted to run for President. However, Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah has introduced legislation seeking to change the US Constitution so that any person who has been a US citizen for 20 years could run for the White House. The Austrian-born actor-turned-politico became a US citizen in 1983. Asked on NBC's Meet the Press yesterday if he would support Hatch's legislation, Kennedy replied, “I would.”

I have said repeatedly. If the Republicans the "Strict COnstructionists" want to amend the constitution to allow foreigners to run......fine with me. But there should be a provision in that amendment which allows previous presidents to run too......like hmmmmm I dunno.....

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/debates/sights.sounds/1006final/clinton.sm.jpg

I have said repeatedly. If the Republicans the "Strict COnstructionists" want to amend the constitution to allow foreigners to run......fine with me. But there should be a provision in that amendment which allows previous presidents to run too......like hmmmmm I dunno.....

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/debates/sights.sounds/1006final/clinton.sm.jpg

There's a guy I'll show up at the polls to vote for.

Interesting side note here: the Republicans were the ones who introduced the bill limiting a president to two terms. The reason they did this is because they were so ticked off that FDR was pres for such a long time. In the end, this ended up biting them back in the you-know-what when the ultra-popular Reagan had to step down. He was probably the first president after FDR who would have carried a third term.

Anyway, this goes to show that the rules for becoming and staying president can be changed rather easily.

Interesting side note here: the Republicans were the ones who introduced the bill limiting a president to two terms. The reason they did this is because they were so ticked off that FDR was pres for such a long time. In the end, this ended up biting them back in the you-know-what when the ultra-popular Reagan had to step down. He was probably the first president after FDR who would have carried a third term.

Anyway, this goes to show that the rules for becoming and staying president can be changed rather easily.

Don't fool yourselves. The Constitution will not be amended to allow foreign born candidates. The two term rule was set by Washington and followed by every president up to FDR. Most presidents had been following the unwritten law all along so it wasn't very controversial. We will have a black female president before we have a foreign born pres. So anyone hoping for Arnold in 2008 - Fugetaboutit!

It think both the two term limit and the naturalized citizen law could be changed. Hell a lot of states refuse to call english its language, so why not.

I have said repeatedly. If the Republicans the "Strict COnstructionists" want to amend the constitution to allow foreigners to run......fine with me. But there should be a provision in that amendment which allows previous presidents to run too......like hmmmmm I dunno.....

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/debates/sights.sounds/1006final/clinton.sm.jpg


...Yeah, I'm pretty sure that would exclude impeached presidents. Besides, he may not be as much of a sociopath as I thought as his health problems may indicate his conscience may be starting to get to him. He looks like an old worn out man now. He would never survive the rigors and this country would never re-elect that frickin loser.

Interesting side note here: the Republicans were the ones who introduced the bill limiting a president to two terms. The reason they did this is because they were so ticked off that FDR was pres for such a long time. In the end, this ended up biting them back in the you-know-what when the ultra-popular Reagan had to step down. He was probably the first president after FDR who would have carried a third term.

Anyway, this goes to show that the rules for becoming and staying president can be changed rather easily.


...Yeah, have you heard Clintons take on it. He thinks a President should be limited to two consecutive terms but not to 2 total terms. He feels like a country should be able to vote for a President that they had in the past when times are tough. lol lol lol What a frickin jackass.

AH-nold is going to be the first US pres that isn't even an american citizen. When he runs, it'll be a landslide

...Yeah, have you heard Clintons take on it. He thinks a President should be limited to two consecutive terms but not to 2 total terms. He feels like a country should be able to vote for a President that they had in the past when times are tough. lol lol lol What a frickin jackass.

lol...well, the man took forever to leave town on inaugration day. Plus he loves himself and believes others do to. Not that I'm down totally on ol'Slick Willie. But his ego's the size of the Moon.

AH-nold is going to be the first US pres that isn't even an american citizen. When he runs, it'll be a landslide

It's NOT going to happen!!!

Americans are far too xenophobic. We hate the U.N. You really think we're going to place the foreigner in charge of our nation. Not any time soon, that's for sure.

Do you even understand the amendment process?

The bill must first pass both halves of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states where it must be approved by three-fourths of states.

As for repealing the 2 term limit, it's already been tried and dismally failed. It isn't easy to amend the constitution,. And for good reason.

This is all hypothetical, of course....but..


Even though i believe Arnold is far more intelligent than most give him credit for, I truly will be embarrassed by our population if he were to become our president at some point.

Yeah, he's the governor of California.....but, California was an embarrassment BEFORE they elected him.

This is all hypothetical, of course....but..


Even though i believe Arnold is far more intelligent than most give him credit for, I truly will be embarrassed by our population if he were to become our president at some point.

Yeah, he's the governor of California.....but, California was an embarrassment BEFORE they elected him.

Hey!! Im from California :p

Yes, California is the land of fruits and nuts to say the least, but Arnold has been a great governor so far. Just about any issue he gets behind goes the way he wants. For example, last night in California we:

1.Passed a 3 billion dollar Stem Cell research bill to put California on the cutting edge of this new technology.

2.Shot down 2 indian casio/special intrest bills that would have given them a 99 year gambling monopoly in the state.

3.shot down a bill that would have restructured our 3 strikes law and let hundreds of violent criminals out on the streets.


Arnold is extrememly popular in California and his charisma is up there with Bill Clintons. If Arnold was ever able to run for President he would win easily because he would carry California.

That's nice......but I ain't votin' for no kindy-garten cop !

That's nice......but I ain't votin' for no kindy-garten cop !

How about Abraxas, Guardian of the Universe?

3.shot down a bill that would have restructured our 3 strikes law and let hundreds of violent criminals out on the streets.



How would the law have been restructured?

The problem with 3 strikes is that a guy who gets caught, say, smoking pot 3 times gets jail for life. Violent crimes I can understand more, but even then people get convicted of assault for the smallest things all the time, especially in minority neighbourhoods where racist cops haul people in for stuff rich white folks get away with every day.

"but even then people get convicted of assault for the smallest things all the time, especially in minority neighbourhoods where racist cops haul people in for stuff rich white folks get away with every day."


You don't honestly believe that, do you ?
I'm talking about you claiming rich whites are out committing the same violent crimes that take place in minority neighborhoods.
I'll agree that there's more drug use in the well-to-do areas than we are lead to believe....but VIOLENCE ?
Not even close.

You don't honestly believe that, do you ?
I'm talking about you claiming rich whites are out committing the same violent crimes that take place in minority neighborhoods.
I'll agree that there's more drug use in the well-to-do areas than we are lead to believe....but VIOLENCE ?
Not even close.

How many rape and other sexual assault cases are dropped or fail to lead to convictions because teams of lawyers protect the rich? Quite a few. I would consider these violent crimes.

I'm not saying rich people are holding up liquor stores or anything. But I'm sure just as many get loaded and start throwing punches (or worse) at each other. You don't think that these cases don't get covered up? This happens out in the street in a poor neighbourhood and the cops arrest even the people who were just watching the thing happen.

How would the law have been restructured?

The problem with 3 strikes is that a guy who gets caught, say, smoking pot 3 times gets jail for life. Violent crimes I can understand more, but even then people get convicted of assault for the smallest things all the time, especially in minority neighbourhoods where racist cops haul people in for stuff rich white folks get away with every day.

Thats not how the law works. You have a misunderstanding. It goes like this - If you are convicted of 2 serious or violent felonies, then you get caught, lets say, stealing or assaulting someone, or something thats not a felony, you can be prosecuted under three strikes. Whether you are prosecuted under three strikes depends on the prosecutor. If you are on your third strike and you have never raped, killed, or kidnapped someone and your third strike is for bouncing a check, your not going to go to jail under three strikes and get 25 to life.

I think your misunderstanding is that all 3 crimes can be misdemeanors. Thats not the case. The first 2 have to be serious or cviolent felonies, and the third can be a misdemeanor.

Getting drunk & chucking punches at another drunk is a part of life.


Don't compare that to the murder & day-to-day terrorism that takes place in many of the inner-cities.

What's going on in the inner-cities is tragic.
Sitting back & bemoaning the fact that the cops don't crack down on suburbanites' misdemeanors like they do the unbelievable **** in the ghetto....is counter-productive.
I know, taking that stance makes the inner-city perps feel less guilty, & the white liberals feel like they are of superior intelligence compared to other whites.
But, ultimately....it aids in the destruction of those areas.

The problems of the inner-city should be tackled, not passed off, justified, or given sympathy.

I'm pretty much a Democrat, by the way. I believe there is undoubtedly a lot of racism (based on cluelessness & fear) in the white community....but, my above stated view is REALISM.

Getting drunk & chucking punches at another drunk is a part of life.


Don't compare that to the murder & day-to-day terrorism that takes place in many of the inner-cities.

What's going on in the inner-cities is tragic.
Sitting back & bemoaning the fact that the cops don't crack down on suburbanites' misdemeanors like they do the unbelievable **** in the ghetto....is counter-productive.
I know, taking that stance makes the inner-city perps feel less guilty, & the white liberals feel like they are of superior intelligence compared to other whites.
But, ultimately....it aids in the destruction of those areas.

The problems of the inner-city should be tackled, not passed off, justified, or given sympathy.

I'm pretty much a Democrat, by the way. I believe there is undoubtedly a lot of racism (based on cluelessness & fear) in the white community....but, my above stated view is REALISM.

I agree with what you're saying here. Maybe I'm misrepresenting myself...hell, I'm tried after watching the results last night till way too late.

I'm not saying that cops should crack down on petty crime in the suburbs...I think it should be the opposite and that they should not use these laws to give poor people criminal records for no good reason. I agree that the usual guilty-liberal rhetoric simply does not help the situation.

The problem, IMO, is that there are two separate and conflicting issues to tackle here. One is the to remedy the socio-economic reasons for why there is so much crime in these areas. This is where the sympathy you are speaking of comes into play. There are a lot of people in these areas who would probably not be doing what they are doing if they were better off. At the same time, however, people are being affected by the terrible crimes going on. This is a police problem and generall can only be remedied in the short-term by arrests and convictions. It's difficult to find a way to balance these two approaches.

Thats not how the law works. You have a misunderstanding. It goes like this - If you are convicted of 2 serious or violent felonies, then you get caught, lets say, stealing or assaulting someone, or something thats not a felony, you can be prosecuted under three strikes. Whether you are prosecuted under three strikes depends on the prosecutor. If you are on your third strike and you have never raped, killed, or kidnapped someone and your third strike is for bouncing a check, your not going to go to jail under three strikes and get 25 to life.

I think your misunderstanding is that all 3 crimes can be misdemeanors. Thats not the case. The first 2 have to be serious or cviolent felonies, and the third can be a misdemeanor.

Okay, I had a feeling I was missing something here. There is still the issue of drug possession, however. It is techincally a crime, though all but the most conservative judges would not consider it a violent one. This turns into a completely different issue, though.

Thats not how the law works. You have a misunderstanding. It goes like this - If you are convicted of 2 serious or violent felonies, then you get caught, lets say, stealing or assaulting someone, or something thats not a felony, you can be prosecuted under three strikes. Whether you are prosecuted under three strikes depends on the prosecutor. If you are on your third strike and you have never raped, killed, or kidnapped someone and your third strike is for bouncing a check, your not going to go to jail under three strikes and get 25 to life. I think your misunderstanding is that all 3 crimes can be misdemeanors. Thats not the case. The first 2 have to be serious or cviolent felonies, and the third can be a misdemeanor.

That's not entirely correct. Although most of the "three strikes" crimes are serious or violent crimes, they also lump in victimless drug crimes with rape, murder and the like. During the "crack" era of the 80's many states were so overwhelmed with the fear of these drugs making there way into the suburbs that they changed simple possession misdemeanors to serious felonies. Speaking from experience I was arrested and charged with a felony in my youth for the possession of 2 grams of mushrooms (the amount of 1 small dose). I had a good lawyer and got off on a diversion program, but some kids are doing life in prison for getting caught with a bag of refer a few times.


This is the area where most of the outrageous incarcerations have taken place. This is why the law needs reform.

That's not entirely correct. Although most of the "three strikes" crimes are serious or violent crimes, they also lump in victimless drug crimes with rape, murder and the like. During the "crack" era of the 80's many states were so overwhelmed with the fear of these drugs making there way into the suburbs that they changed simple possession misdemeanors to serious felonies. Speaking from experience I was arrested and charged with a felony in my youth for the possession of 2 grams of mushrooms (the amount of 1 small dose).

This is the area where most of the outrageous incarcerations have taken place. This is why the law needs reform.

I think you right in that they do consider some drung possesion to be serious. I think that is wrong unless you have 20 kilos and your protecting it with an arsenal of weapons.

The reform that was proposed would not have fixed the law. It would still have problems and people who should be locked up for life would have been able to get out early because their third strike wasnt a serious or violent felony. I think they need to re-write the proposition and put it on the next ballot.

There's a guy I'll show up at the polls to vote for.

Me too, I don't mind a President who is young enough to enjoy a good blowjob, and if he wants to smoke a little puntang flavored cigar, who am I to judge?!