24 replies to this topic

[PyROTech]

Neither was Arnold, but lets talk about future presidents.Most of you probably don't know I loved Reagan, infact, you might be surprised tofind out im a bit right of centre. Who would of thought?



We have the elections coming up in Canada, but that's adifferent topic. Todays questions…

1) Would you change the so called rules (lol) to allow a non US born citizen to become president?

2) Would you vote for Arnold if he ran?

3) If yes to question #1, what conditions would you put on the person?

4) Should a female be allowed to run for/be president?


edited part: the title was only for effect, not an actual statement, just need to clear that up.

[magicaljake]

NO
YES
N/A
YES

[DonutsDemise]

1) Yes
2)I love what he did with California's economy. Hopefully a company as great as Enron can create a flukey situation where someone like him could actually be elected president.
3)As long as they aren't a zealot
4)I always thought this was restricted to white christian males and then Obama got elected so I guess women should be allowed to try

[theForgottenone]

1. NO
2. NO
3. N/A
4. YES

[beewerks]

1. No
2. Yes, and Chuck Norris for VP!
3. N/A
4. Yes

[95 854 t-5]

1.Yes
2.Yes
3. 15-20 years of citizenship and maybe previous public office held
4. "I can see russia from my house" so no until someone else presents themselves as a reasonable canidate... anyway what if we nuke the middle east cause of aunt flow??

But seriously yes if palin weren't the only possible canidate...

[swc75]

No
No
N/A
Yes (Why not?)

[Burn-E]

1. No - so called rules? Show some respect. It's called a Constitution, otherwise known as the foundation of government.
2. No - study his record and get past his celebrity and you'll realize that there wasn't much he did that was good for the State of California (he and Reagan aren't even in the same league)
3. N/A
4. That's a stupid question - a woman could govern as well as a man

[besthaticouldo]

Burn-E, on 20 April 2011 - 03:00 PM, said:

1. No - so called rules? Show some respect. It's called a Constitution, otherwise known as the foundation of government.
2. No - study his record and get past his celebrity and you'll realize that there wasn't much he did that was good for the State of California (he and Reagan aren't even in the same league)
3. N/A
4. That's a stupid question - a woman could govern as well as a man

well put.

arnold has ruined california.

[PyROTech]

Burn-E, on 20 April 2011 - 03:00 PM, said:

1. No - so called rules? Show some respect. It's called a Constitution, otherwise known as the foundation of government.
2. No - study his record and get past his celebrity and you'll realize that there wasn't much he did that was good for the State of California (he and Reagan aren't even in the same league)
3. N/A
4. That's a stupid question - a woman could govern as well as a man

hope your not actually offended. some would have assumed that the entire thread was to be taken as a parody.

[Burn-E]

PyROTech, on 21 April 2011 - 12:58 AM, said:

hope your not actually offended. some would have assumed that the entire thread was to be taken as a parody.

Oh hardly, I'm poking back at a Canadian - my wife who is Canadian and I have these kinds of debates and discussions constantly. Like how Canada is simply the 51st State.

Or how the Quebec question would be the equivalent of the Southwestern States deciding that they didn't want anything to do with Mexico but they still feel isolated because we don't all speak Spanish too.

[ErikS]

McCain was born in Panama, where are the birthers for that one.

[PyROTech]

ErikS, on 22 April 2011 - 12:39 AM, said:

McCain was born in Panama, where are the birthers for that one.

US military base. Not a backwoods Panamanian hostel

[Pops Racer]

1. NO

2-3 Null and void due to #1

4. Yes, my wife. Shes a bank VP, she could run anything. Id vote for a Margret Thatcher in a heartbeat. Or the late Jean Kirkpatrick. Or Phyliss Schlafley back in the day. Sensing a trend in my dogma?

Nice try Eric.

Next.

Edited by Pops Racer, 25 April 2011 - 02:01 AM.

[ErikS]

PyROTech, on 22 April 2011 - 03:56 AM, said:

US military base. Not a backwoods Panamanian hostel

There is a difference?

Pops Racer, on 25 April 2011 - 01:59 AM, said:

Nice try Eric.

Don't blame me Trump/Palin 2012

[Burn-E]

ErikS, on 25 April 2011 - 08:02 PM, said:

There is a difference?

Sheesh, you're both wrong on this account. Military installations and Embassies may be considered islands of US sovereignty but not for a child whose parents are not US citizens. Although the Panama Canal Zone back then was part of the US territories.

Erik however is probably referring to the murky question on US citizenship that existed for those born of two US citizens in the Panama Canal Zone since the Supreme Court ruled in 1905 that those children were US nationals but not citizens. The only problem with his argument is that Congress in 1937 passed a retroactive law that resolved this question.

Although the Panama Canal Zone was legally an unincorporated U.S. territory until the implementation of the Torrijos-Carter Treaties in 1979, questions arose almost from its inception as to whether the Zone was considered part of the United States for constitutional purposes, or, in the phrase of the day, whether the Constitution followed the flag. In 1901 the U.S. Supreme Court had ruled in Downes v. Bidwell that unincorporated territories are not the United States. On July 28, 1904, Controller of the Treasury Robert Tracewell stated: "While the general spirit and purpose of the Constitution is applicable to the zone, that domain is not a part of the United States within the full meaning of the Constitution and laws of the country." Accordingly, the Supreme Court held in 1905 in Rasmussen v. United States that the full Constitution only applies for incorporated territories of the United States. Until the rulings in these so-called "Insular Cases", children born of two U.S. citizens in the Canal Zone had been subject to the Naturalization Act of 1795, which granted statutory U.S. citizenship at birth. With the ruling of 1905 persons born in the Canal Zone only became U.S. nationals, not citizens. This no man's land with regard to U.S. citizenship was perpetuated until Congress passed legislation in 1937, which corrected this deficiency. The law is now codified under title 8 section 1403. It not only grants statutory and declaratory born citizenship to those born in the Canal Zone after February 26, 1904, with at least one U.S. citizen parent, but also did so retroactively for all children born of at least one U.S. citizen in the Canal Zone before the law's enactment.

The rules back then were different from what they are today though for children born to a US citizen outside of the country - in general it also comes to how long the child lived outside of the US after birth and how recently their parent(s) lived in the US and for how long both prior to the birth and after it.

It's similar to how my 4 girls all have rights to Canadian citizenship but thanks to the law change that occurred in 2009 only 3 of the 4 have rights to pass that citizenship on to their children. Immigration laws are constantly changing and it's always a question of what rules were in effect at the time of birth.

[greekone]

http://news.yahoo.co...rth-certificate

[besthaticouldo]

he released the short form over 2 years ago. this is not news.

he just released the long form to get trump to shut his big mouth.

[Zappo]

besthaticouldo, on 27 April 2011 - 06:42 PM, said:

he just released the long form to get trump to shut his big mouth.

Not going to happen. Trump is enjoying the spotlight and will simply move on to something else.

[PyROTech]

Zappo, on 27 April 2011 - 06:57 PM, said:

Not going to happen. Trump is enjoying the spotlight and will simply move on to something else.

must first to see if its real. lol