Ahnold for Emperor

From: Andrew Solovay <asolovay_at_V7JIbHgVQMOGYD2u_2WvOPYp-iF_J9xYvlCW8uWw3ZmdnTzuA6KFIPaFRXk6CzBex2P>
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 12:54:42 -0700

Chris Lemens <chrislemens_at_fERdRkRvTIc64VLWI9DsNMpufnfpjrZSne4BPOonDhRty4SIFe_Y0ithyCJeH2Zs6sg2h6VnCENjxO_GZ3hO.yahoo.invalid> wrote:
> --- Andrew Solovay <asolovay_at_INGv4KJAAE97le7jKJLOF03UCYHvVYkNNQ5afzxuNmlvGjhxdvy0zWo5Iw6fUoBhCtomhShWVjj4ymTFLdoQNi0.yahoo.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Now, all we need to do is amend the constitution so
>> he can run
>
> I'm against amending the Constitution for anyone. If
> there was ever a case for it, it would have been
> Reagan, anayway.

I'd be in favor of moderating the current "only natural-born citizens" rule, but not specifically for Arnold.

In fact, the idea I have in mind would exclude Arnold. That is, I'd be in favor of letting a naturalized citizen run for president if: (a) he's been a US citizen for 20 years (Hatch's proposal), *and* (b) he has not held dual-nationality for at least the last ten years. As I see it, if you're going to be president, you should have all your eggs in this one basket.

Since Arnold's currently a dual-national (US & Austria), he wouldn't qualify.

That said, the Hatch amendment might go through as-is. There are now foreign-born stars in each party--the Democrats' Jennifer Granholm (born in Canada), and the GOP's Arnold. So both sides have an interest. Plus, I don't think most people are all that strongly in favor of the must-be-born-here requirement. Made sense in 1787, but I don't think it's necessary now.

--AMS