General Discussion

MineralMan

(151,281 posts)

27. Yes. Amending the Constitution is very

Thu Nov 15, 2012, 03:21 PM

Nov 2012

difficult, and should be. The process is extremely complex and requires an extraordinary amount of nationwide support. If any Amendment should have been ratified, it is the ERA. That it wasn't indicates just how difficult the process is.

The native born citizen requirement to be eligible to be President is one of the very fundamentals of the Constitution. There is absolutely zero chance that will ever be changed.

Why do we waste our time with such things, when there are real issues that actually can be dealt with? I've never understood that about DU.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

59 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Now that it has nothing to do with current politics... [View all] Ken Burch Nov 2012 OP

There are times when I miss the "unrec" button (sigh) kickysnana Nov 2012 #1

The last thing a "sleeper" would do would be to seek the presidency. Ken Burch Nov 2012 #4

Rec. hay rick Nov 2012 #2

There was more than enough of that in post#1 Ken Burch Nov 2012 #3

NO!! Angry Dragon Nov 2012 #5

Sorry I disagree. I like it the way it is thank you. dem4ward Nov 2012 #6

This was actually suggested by Republicans... Agnosticsherbet Nov 2012 #7

I remember that. Ken Burch Nov 2012 #8

word GeorgeGist Nov 2012 #9

Nope. A nation's leader should be bred in the nation. nt Comrade_McKenzie Nov 2012 #10

So you want to dictate where the candidate's parents had sex? Brickbat Nov 2012 #43

Great idea though it will never happen. Way too much nativism in the US to expect that naturalized pampango Nov 2012 #11

Yeah ... WTF, right? 99Forever Nov 2012 #12

I said let naturalized citizens be president. Ken Burch Nov 2012 #13

Well golly gee Ken... 99Forever Nov 2012 #15

It is, actually, since allowing naturalized citizens to be president Ken Burch Nov 2012 #34

Well, in point of fact, no, they are not. That's why we have a special term for the former. WinkyDink Nov 2012 #36

That's your opinion. 99Forever Nov 2012 #37

Why do you have an issue with immigrants? Ken Burch Nov 2012 #40

Why do you have an issue with Americans.. 99Forever Nov 2012 #42

I have no issue at all with Americans who were born here(being one myself). Ken Burch Nov 2012 #44

You don't quite get what ... 99Forever Nov 2012 #48

Are you just satirizing anti-immigrant talking points? Ken Burch Nov 2012 #49

No.. 99Forever Nov 2012 #52

Except for the fact that my arguments aren't silly and don't deserve to be treated as such Ken Burch Nov 2012 #57

not just no, but hell no quinnox Nov 2012 #14

Why are you opposed to Puerto Rico statehood? n/t Egalitarian Thug Nov 2012 #18

for a few reasons quinnox Nov 2012 #20

You do know, don't you ... surrealAmerican Nov 2012 #22

I know they aren't a state quinnox Nov 2012 #23

Surely being a non-state is more like ... surrealAmerican Nov 2012 #38

Hmmm DemocratSinceBirth Nov 2012 #26

I don't see those as good reasons to deny statehood Sgent Nov 2012 #29

I find it rather odd. calico1 Nov 2012 #31

My thread wasn't anti-independence, it was pro-self determination. Ken Burch Nov 2012 #33

Thanks for answering. I would agree with you except for the fact that being a territory Egalitarian Thug Nov 2012 #39

I think Puerto Rican statehood, if it ever becomes a real issue, should be put to popular vote here. cherokeeprogressive Nov 2012 #46

Puerto Ricans are already US citizens. Why should they not become a state if they so desire? It's pampango Nov 2012 #21

+1000 calico1 Nov 2012 #32

Why not?n/t calico1 Nov 2012 #30

As soon as we address the other 10,000 things that are more important. n/t Egalitarian Thug Nov 2012 #16

I didn't say this was more important than everything else, for the record. Ken Burch Nov 2012 #41

First, such an amendment would never be enacted. MineralMan Nov 2012 #17

That is the problem with all of these suggestions to amend the Constitution... Agnosticsherbet Nov 2012 #25

Yes. Amending the Constitution is very MineralMan Nov 2012 #27

It is because we are a large group of individuals, each with his or her own set issues. Agnosticsherbet Nov 2012 #28

Discussing ideas is what we do on DU. LiberalAndProud Nov 2012 #54

Make it like the dream act. gravity Nov 2012 #19

Or simply with a requirement that you live in the country say, at least fifteen years first. Ken Burch Nov 2012 #50

I would not support that. No need to change closeupready Nov 2012 #24

I'd wager a bet that it is decidedly NOT "time to start the process." WEIRD. WinkyDink Nov 2012 #35

Nnnnnnnnnope. cherokeeprogressive Nov 2012 #45

where someone was born has just as little to do with loyalty as religion does liberal_at_heart Nov 2012 #47

Arnold, is that you? Sekhmets Daughter Nov 2012 #51

What a jacked up priority in our present situation. TheKentuckian Nov 2012 #53

If I really thought that any US ciitizen can grow up to be President, LiberalAndProud Nov 2012 #55

Again, I never said this issue mattered more than all others...just wanted to get the ball rolling. Ken Burch Nov 2012 #59

And what's to prevent power hungry wealthy people Shankapotomus Nov 2012 #56

You'd have a residency requirement...say ten years or fifteen... Ken Burch Nov 2012 #58