• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Amendment for non-US born to be eligible for prez

Amendment for non-us born to be eligible for President of United States


  • Total voters
    17
Fantasea said:
I'm simply saying that I see no valid reason for trashing a tradition as old as this nation.
How about because it descriminates against foreign people?


Fantasea said:
As far as anarchy is concerned, I prefer the definition that goes: a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government.

That sounds like 'libertarian' to me.
libertarian is more like "a society of free individuals in which the government ensures no person or group of people may limit anyone's natural rights (life, liberty, property)"

This is different. The problem with anarchy is it doesn't reprehend people for infringing upon the rights of others, while a libertarian society does. This is a key difference. Libertarians retain freedom without oppression.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fantasea
I'm simply saying that I see no valid reason for trashing a tradition as old as this nation.

How about because it descriminates against foreign people?

I like to think of the US as a 'club' that has a set of rules which it established long ago because the founders of the club believed that rules were necessary to provide for orderly conduct of club business.

Membership in this club is extended to persons from all over the world. The only requirement is for them to show that they are of good character and take an oath to support, defend, and preserve the established 'rules' of the club. If they do not wish to do this, they are under no obligation to join the club.

To date, I haven't heard of any naturalized citizen complaining about discrimination because he can never hold the office which has been held by only 43 persons thus far.

As I wrote earlier, even Alexander Hamilton, a person who was certainly well qualified to be president, by virtue of the fact that he was a founding father of the republic and its first Secretary of the Treasury, dutifully accepted the fact that his 'foreign birth' prevented his ascension to the presidency.

If an exception could not be made for this man, I see no reason to alter the constitution to accord this privilege to any other.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Fantasea
As far as anarchy is concerned, I prefer the definition that goes: a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government.
That sounds like 'libertarian' to me.

libertarian is more like "a society of free individuals in which the government ensures no person or group of people may limit anyone's natural rights (life, liberty, property)"

This is different. The problem with anarchy is it doesn't reprehend people for infringing upon the rights of others, while a libertarian society does. This is a key difference. Libertarians retain freedom without oppression.

I do not think, believe, or accept another's word that I am oppressed. On the other hand, I think, believe, and accept that I have complete freedom to live my life as I wish within reasonable limitations which afford sufficient privileges and protections as I believe are consistent with maintaining good order in a nation of nearly 300 million people.

I believe that every right has a corresponding responsibility. I believe that the advocating and agitating for more and more rights, privileges, and entitlements, without corresponding responsibilities, is the root cause of most of the problems we struggle to solve.
 
Fantasea said:
I do not think, believe, or accept another's word that I am oppressed. On the other hand, I think, believe, and accept that I have complete freedom to live my life as I wish within reasonable limitations
Every limitation is a limitation nonetheless. Our country was founded on a principle that every person is entitled to COMPLETE freedom, so long as they don't interfere with others. Funny how each elected official has to swear to uphold the constitution when they are constantly violating our right to "liberty to the fullest extent".


Fantasea said:
I believe that every right has a corresponding responsibility. I believe that the advocating and agitating for more and more rights, privileges, and entitlements, without corresponding responsibilities, is the root cause of most of the problems we struggle to solve.[/B]
That is so true! And when we give the government the right to control our daily lives, they consistently claim "sovereign immunity" to allow themselves to function without regard towards responsibility.

In a free market society, people must take responsibility for their actions because they have consequences. Businesses that don't offer affordable prices and new innovations crumble.

However, things are different when the government controls an area of our lives. Because they force us to pay our taxdollars towards it and they have no competition from other businesses, government can do as bad a job as it wants and we are unable to prevent that. It's essentially why communism fails. When you have no competition, there's no reason to waste valuable time and energy to do your best or become more efficient.

Every right does come with responsibility, and I only ask for 3: life, liberty, and property. With these come responsibility not to infringe on another person's or group's same rights. If I do, however, it is the job of the judiciary system to make me compensate for my wrongdoing.


Fantasea said:
I like to think of the US as a 'club' that has a set of rules which it established long ago because the founders of the club believed that rules were necessary to provide for orderly conduct of club business.
When the founders set down the rules of our 'club', they were to protect our rights and prevent ourselves from government control. They understood that government is a power to be held down. In the words of our own first President, "Government is not reason; it is not eloquence. It is force. And force like fire is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." -George Washington
 
Gabo said:
Every limitation is a limitation nonetheless. Our country was founded on a principle that every person is entitled to COMPLETE freedom, so long as they don't interfere with others. Funny how each elected official has to swear to uphold the constitution when they are constantly violating our right to "liberty to the fullest extent".
If this country was populated by a handful of people who rarely came in contact with other, perhaps your 'complete freedom' might work for a while.


Originally Posted by Fantasea
I believe that every right has a corresponding responsibility. I believe that the advocating and agitating for more and more rights, privileges, and entitlements, without corresponding responsibilities, is the root cause of most of the problems we struggle to solve.

That is so true! And when we give the government the right to control our daily lives, they consistently claim "sovereign immunity" to allow themselves to function without regard towards responsibility.

This is not the fault of government, per se. It a result of the cowardice of politicians who cannot stand up to the socialist-liberal element that coined the phrase, 'political correctness' and screams discrimination and suppression of freedom whenever an attempt is made to rein in irresponsible behavior.

They quote many, however they never use the most famous quote of one of their darlings, JFK. You may recall the words from his inaugural speech, "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." By today's standards, those words are totally politically incorrect, aren't they?

In a free market society, people must take responsibility for their actions because they have consequences.

There are two broad clases of people. Those who are responsible; those who are irresponsible. The reason that laws exist is to attempt to control irresponsible behavior.

Businesses that don't offer affordable prices and new innovations crumble.
Businesses come and go. The consumer determines which ones will stay.

However, things are different when the government controls an area of our lives. Because they force us to pay our taxdollars towards it and they have no competition from other businesses, government can do as bad a job as it wants and we are unable to prevent that.

Every two years, voters elect a brand new slate of representatives. If they don't like the job their representative is doing, they can replace him. If they send him back, it must be because they like the job he is doing. The same for the senate, except only one third of them come up for reelection every two years.

It's essentially why communism fails.
Communism can be enforced only at the end of a gun barrel. The reason it fails is because humans are intelligent and resist being herded like cattle.

'To each according to his need and from each according to his ability' ensures that everybody needs everything and nobody will do anything.

When you have no competition, there's no reason to waste valuable time and energy to do your best or become more efficient.
You are describing business and commerce under communism.

Every right does come with responsibility, and I only ask for 3: life, liberty, and property. With these come responsibility not to infringe on another person's or group's same rights. If I do, however, it is the job of the judiciary system to make me compensate for my wrongdoing.
You are describing life in these United States.

When the founders set down the rules of our 'club', they were to protect our rights and prevent ourselves from government control. They understood that government is a power to be held down. In the words of our own first President, "Government is not reason; it is not eloquence. It is force. And force like fire is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." -George Washington
I would like to see less government. However, the constant effort by the socialist-lib-dems to create a duplicate of the European cradle to grave social/welfare system resulted in governmental growth during the forty years following the enactment of the Johnson Admnistration's 'Great Society' entitlement programs, most of which cost many times their cost projections and never lived up to their press releases.

Unfortunately, letting the air out of the bloated balloon is a slow process.
 
Fantasea said:
If this country was populated by a handful of people who rarely came in contact with other, perhaps your 'complete freedom' might work for a while.
I believe it's the judicial system's job to sort out any violations of people's rights, therefore having freedom shouldn't be a problem.


Fantasea said:
They quote many, however they never use the most famous quote of one of their darlings, JFK. You may recall the words from his inaugural speech, "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." By today's standards, those words are totally politically incorrect, aren't they?
No, not at all. JFK is completely right in the fact that the country should not be doing everything for us. We should be doing everything ourselves, which benefits the entire nation through trading.


Fantasea said:
There are two broad clases of people. Those who are responsible; those who are irresponsible. The reason that laws exist is to attempt to control irresponsible behavior.
Close, but not quite. Laws exist to punish irresponsible behavior, not to control it. There's no way to control people even by force. The only way to effectively stop something is to enact a punishment for it.


Fantasea said:
Every two years, voters elect a brand new slate of representatives. If they don't like the job their representative is doing, they can replace him. If they send him back, it must be because they like the job he is doing. The same for the senate, except only one third of them come up for reelection every two years.
Just because we elect these representatives it gives them rights to force the will of the nation to conform to their standards? They are supposed to uphold the constitution and do what is best for ALL americans, not just the MAJORITY of americans.


Fantasea said:
Communism can be enforced only at the end of a gun barrel. The reason it fails is because humans are intelligent and resist being herded like cattle.
Yet our government moves closer and closer to Communism each day and the average person has no idea.


Fantasea said:
You are describing life in these United States.
I was describing how life USED to be in the US. That was before the government monopolized education, transportation, energy, retirement, and a number of other things. To support these it steals from the American public to fund monopolies! We all know monopolies destroy advancement in an area! Furthermore, the government steals more from us to fund organizations such as NASA, foreign aid, and others which many Americans disagree with because they are ineffective and/or more expensive than private businesses could provide. Why should a family barely making enough income to food and clothe itself have to pay for the exploration of space?


Fantasea said:
I would like to see less government. However, the constant effort by the socialist-lib-dems to create a duplicate of the European cradle to grave social/welfare system resulted in governmental growth during the forty years following the enactment of the Johnson Admnistration's 'Great Society' entitlement programs, most of which cost many times their cost projections and never lived up to their press releases.
Republicans aren't exactly all for reducing gov size either, at least not lately. Bush alone has increased government size plenty through his first four years, and will likely continue to add to the massive government budget in his second term.


Fantasea said:
Unfortunately, letting the air out of the bloated balloon is a slow process.
Right now, politicians are too busy pumping air into the balloon as fast as they can. Sooner or later its going to pop, and that's when America will realize they didn't want a balloon in the first place.
 
Of course we're not. We both want what's best for everyone. :D

What I'm trying to say is, whether its me trying to tell you what to do, or the government trying to tell everyone what to do, it's wrong. We all need to respect the decisions and rights of others as long as they respect our decisions and rights.

Most importantly, when someone else begins by violating our rights, we need to not fight fire with fire, but instead turn to the justice system to impose retribution for our damage.
 
Gabo said:
Of course we're not. We both want what's best for everyone. :D

What I'm trying to say is, whether its me trying to tell you what to do, or the government trying to tell everyone what to do, it's wrong. We all need to respect the decisions and rights of others as long as they respect our decisions and rights.

Most importantly, when someone else begins by violating our rights, we need to not fight fire with fire, but instead turn to the justice system to impose retribution for our damage.

Folks who play by the rules rarely have problems. Those who don't like the rules can appeal to their legislators for changes in the rules. If they can't get the rules changed, then they can either relax and make the best of things or keep banging their head against the wall.
 
I don't see why so many people support these rules when they break the original rules guidelines! (the constitution)
 
joining the libertarian party was tempting for a time honestly both major parties spend way too much money now a days but i cant agree with libertarian on most social issues......

yes when the govt doesnt allow a citizen the right to run for president the govt is being prejeduce against that person for being "different"

there is no reason to be paranoid about this issues the arguement for not letting immagrants run have followed

#1 a country could plant a sleeper over here
#2 if elected sleeper could weaken country
#3 would be partial to home land

first of all under our laws right now a country could plant sleepers over here anyways all they would have to do is send 2 peeps who were radicals over here and have them churn out a kid so, not having immagrants run is saving us from anything there

lets say a sleeper did get in there is this little thing called "congress" that approves or puts forward much of what the president can and cannot do so its not like he could destroy the nation from the inside

even if he was partial to his home country who it would create friendly relation possibly trade oppurtunities and if he was too biased congress would block the treaties made by him to his country
 
Jufarius87 said:
joining the libertarian party was tempting for a time honestly both major parties spend way too much money now a days but i cant agree with libertarian on most social issues......

yes when the govt doesnt allow a citizen the right to run for president the govt is being prejeduce against that person for being "different"

there is no reason to be paranoid about this issues the arguement for not letting immagrants run have followed

#1 a country could plant a sleeper over here
#2 if elected sleeper could weaken country
#3 would be partial to home land

first of all under our laws right now a country could plant sleepers over here anyways all they would have to do is send 2 peeps who were radicals over here and have them churn out a kid so, not having immagrants run is saving us from anything there

lets say a sleeper did get in there is this little thing called "congress" that approves or puts forward much of what the president can and cannot do so its not like he could destroy the nation from the inside

even if he was partial to his home country who it would create friendly relation possibly trade oppurtunities and if he was too biased congress would block the treaties made by him to his country
How about the fact that the people elect the president anyways, and we deserve to suffer the consequences for making a bad choice. If Saddam came over and ran for president and won, there's no way we should blame Congress or the laws themselves for what he might do. It's our fault as the nation who supported him.
 
you are right gabo but the constitution even one upped us there by taking morons into consideration by giving us checks and balences
 
Back
Top Bottom