|
Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this Article
|
|
A Modest Proposal |
Current rating: 0 |
by Joe Futrelle
Email: futrelle (nospam) shout.net (verified) |
24 Nov 2004
Modified: 01:35:00 AM |
|
|
It has recently been suggested that the constitution be amended to allow foreign-born citizens to serve as president.
A campaign subtly entitled "Amend for Arnold" explains that we should do this because it's about time we amended the darn thing, since it gets amended *on average* about every eight years.
William Safire repeated this brain-shatteringly convincing argument in a recent column, but I think he said something like every 12 years--on average.
I'm sick of all this pussyfooting around. I think we should amend the ten commandments to allow Arnold Schwarzenegger to serve as president.
Think about it. What better way to flex the Republican majority's political muscle than to update the moral values their voters care about so much? After all, the world has changed completely since 9/11, which presumably includes its commandments. And what an opportune way to build bridges between the pro-choice, tree-hugging Arnold voters and the red-state NASCAR parents he surely needs to carry the south?
And then when the judges preside over the recount, they'll have that eleventh commandment hanging over their head--literally; it'll be on a newly-installed plaque--reminding us all that "thou shalt not deny Arnold the presidency."
Doubters say it can't be done. But if the religious right is as right and as religious as they say they are, they better start chiseling out those tablets, because 2008 is right around the corner. |
See also:
http://www.amendforarnold.com/
|
This work is in the public domain |
Comments
|
Re: A Modest Proposal |
by someone
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
24 Nov 2004
|
|
Of course, the next president should belong to one of two ruling dynasties: Clintons or Bushs. I honestly don't think why A.Schwarzenegger is even a bit worse than the representatives of these dynasties, especially the one whose turn is coming in 2008. |
|
Re: A Modest Proposal |
by gehrig
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
24 Nov 2004
|
Recommended Constitutional language:
"The President of the United States shall be at least 35 years of age, born in the United States, or Arnold Schwarzenegger."
Now, the fact that he's named by name will _require_ Constitutional amendments every eight or so years, making William Safire happy.
@%< |
|
Re: A Modest Proposal |
by someone
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
24 Nov 2004
|
|
Who is William Safire? If Schwarzenegger runs, the choice would be, as it seems now, between him and Hillary Clinton. I am sure that 90% percent of Americans would choose the first one among these two. If with Hillary's husband the entire country was very concern with the definition of the word 'sex', with Hillary the entire country would be concern with the definition of the word 'is', as very little of anything should be and would be left after this'perfect tool of any kind of destruction' would get the top power. As little as WE -PEOPLE still have of a power to choose our future top ruler (assuming that this planet would survive within next four years) the choice of Scharzenegger is more secure than the choice of Hillary. This is clear for, I am sure, everybody, and this is the bottom line. |
|
Re: A Modest Proposal |
by Jeff
ucimc (nospam) peoria.net (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
24 Nov 2004
|
There is no need to change the consitution - just claim that Arnold is 221 years old. Birth records in the late 1700's were extremely sparse - so there's a legitimate excuse for the lack of a birth certificate :-)
Seriously, the next Republican presidential candidate will not be Arnold. It will be the person George W. appoints as vice president when Dick Cheney resigns in 2006. |
|
Re: A Modest Proposal |
by Joe Futrelle
futrelle (nospam) shout.net (verified) |
Current rating: 0
24 Nov 2004
|
|
Who, indeed, is William Safire? I'm liking the sound of that as a rhetorical question. |
|
Actually, She's Serious |
by regular reader
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
24 Nov 2004
|
Actually, Anna E. ("someone") is being serious, not rhetorical.
She really is clueless about politics but makes herself out to be the expert and a critic of everything she thinks should be done, all, of course, without actually lifting a finger to do anything about it herself.
After all, why should Czarina Anna do anything, when we should jump at the snap of her fingers? |
|
Re: A Modest Proposal (what crap!) |
by Infowars staff
tips (nospam) infowars.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
25 Nov 2004
|
You people have no concept about who Arnold really is. The NWO establishment has painted him as being the savior in the last terminator movie to all of you, but it is quit ethe opposite in reality. Arnold is a nazi government sympathizer. He works for the elite and is being propped up by the ruling elite, The Rothschilds and the Rockefellers - because they think most people view him as some kind of heroic leader. Let this happen and we will live in a movie like "The Running Man" - you will have no rights. You will live in a total police state dictatoship, and that is where the world is going right now, Arnold or no Arnold. This country is being set up for the biggest of falls, all by design, all by deception since the turn of the century. Their plan is almost complete. No more freedom for you and the destruction of the middle-class.
Please don't listen to any stooges who believe otherwise. Rubuke them all! Leave our constitution and bill of rights alone! They have been severaly abrogated, and we have alot of work to do just to repair the damage done since September 11th, 2001.
You will find the facts presented here:
http://www.arnoldexposed.com and
http://www.propagandamatrix.com and
http://www.infowars.com |
|
Re: A Modest Proposal |
by someone
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
25 Nov 2004
|
If you need to talk to Anna E., I am sure that you can contact her. Probably, she left e-mail address. If you meant Anna Epelbaum, then I, myself, would like to see more of her publication, as there were practically none within a while by now.
In any occasion, I am NOT PROFESSIONAL politician, never was, never will be. I am not forcing you or whoever else to do anything. I am expressing my opinions, and always ready to show the logical basis of these opinions, if asked. Once more, your pretension to Anna E. you should discuss with her, if she wants to, of course.
I think that this logic is obvious.
I truly don't know who William Safire is. I don't think that it can be considered as the great illiteracy and/or intentional offense to this web's audience. However, maybe not to know who he is is the same as not to know who George Washington is. Then I apologize for my limited horizons (I hope that you can understand that I am still slightly satirical).
Pertinent to the issue, to amend constitution in this case means to eliminate a kind of discrimination against National origin, and I find it fair. Hillary Clinton, according to polls of fall of 2003, was not recommended by 75 percent to run for presidency against 23%.
Arnold Schwarzenegger had been with landslide elected California governor at the same time.
I don't like much either, but among these two he, for now, actually for then, had better chance to be able to run and to win.
And to be fully honest, after the results of this presidential election and what Bush is currently doing, I don't think that we-all would have a big chance to participate in 2008 election. That is why this election was considered to be so extremely important.
And this election is lost.
I don't have any fun and don't see any sense in "shaking fists after the battle is lost".
By the way, Anna E. has been writing extremely risky articles and poems(with illustrations) before this election. If she chose not to be any more politically involved since then, I could perfectly understand her position. |
|
Re: A Modest Proposal |
by ^
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
25 Nov 2004
|
"...Scharzenegger is more secure than the choice of Hillary. This is clear for, I am sure, everybody, and this is the bottom line."
Why does this discourse somehow remind me of 'Jack Ryan'? Satirical? I hope, but... Clear for me and my bottom line? Not in a million years. |
|
Re: A Modest Proposal |
by someone
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
26 Nov 2004
|
It is impossible to understand your comment ,^. My suggestion -it is better not to make ANY comments than the one you have made. However, it is your SOLID right to post any illiterate nonsense you want to.
As it is my solid right to ignore ALL of them in the future. |
|
Re: A Modest Proposal |
by reader
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
26 Nov 2004
|
> I truly don't know who William Safire is
Has it occurred to anyone to type his name into Google?
I'll make it easy for you all:
http://www.google.com/search?q=william+safire |
|
Re: A Modest Proposal |
by Mink!
mink (nospam) tcp.com (unverified) |
Current rating: 0
26 Nov 2004
|
|
In all seriousness (really!) I came across some interesting discussion of this the other day. The main gist was that while it might be reasonable to allow foreign-born citizens to be president, people might wonder if the entire deal as currently proposed is only for the purposes of electing the Governator to be the Presidentator. Valid concern, valid concern.
The first suggestion to alleviate these concerns was that the amendment, when proposed, should be written to kick in after, say, the next 3 elections.
The second suggestion, which I rather fancy, was that the law should be amended such that anyone may run for president provided that they have been a citizen (naturalized or by birth) for thirty five years.
Currently Americans by birth must be 35 to run, so it makes some sense, and it gets rid of the looming specter of "evil foreign carpetbaggers".
Food for thought, food for thought. Meanwhile, one more year and I'm qualified, muahahaha...
|
|
Re: A Modest Proposal |
by someone
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
27 Nov 2004
|
|
I think that Jeff is right, and who this appointed one would be we-the people would be shown. The probability that Bush'd appoint Schwarzenegger is bigger than any other, as it looks for now, but we would be shown precisely, if survive by then, wouldn't we? Therefore, I prefer to apply my energy and abilities to other maybe more dependable on my efforts causes. Cao, cacao. |
|
Re: A Modest Proposal |
by Umesh Thakkar
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
27 Nov 2004
|
Dear Joe,
I have been reading about this issue of foreign-born citizens for quite a while. First, it is not a priority for me. As an immigrant myself, I think there are several other issues that I would want for foreign-born citizens and residents. This particular issue that you thoughtfully bring forth is on front because of the CA governor (to help the Republican Party) and MI governor (to help the Democratic Party).
I had read that in some places US residents (who are not yet residents) could vote for this just past election. I will be applying for my citizenship in near future (once I become eligible); Actually, I am anxiously waiting to be a US citizen. It has been over 20-years and often times it still seems far away. I think there is less representation of immigrant communities at every level of our government (for example, just review the local leaders or representatives of any city or governing body in Urbana-Champaign area). I would rather have an action item that calls for a diverse leadership at our local level. I have been honored and fortunate to be part of one City of Urbana commission. I am grateful that my commission colleagues are open to my ideas, innovations, and contributions, based on my own expertise and experiences. Since I consider Urbana my favorite city (after having traveled across the US), I would like to see other immigrants involved, especially at the local level.
PS: I do not get to visit this good site frequently. So, pardon the delay in response.
Sincerely,
Umesh |
|
Re: A Modest Proposal |
by Joe Futrelle
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
27 Nov 2004
|
> Dear Joe,
My post is not a thoughtful discussion of anything. It just makes fun of Republicans for having the gall to propose constitutional amendments for transparent political purposes. Do they care about gay marriage, or rights for non-native citizens, or do they just care about getting homophobes to the polls and the option to nominate Arnold? You decide. |
|
Re: A Modest Proposal |
by someone
(No verified email address) |
Current rating: 0
28 Nov 2004
|
Dear authors of comments, behind all progressive over all changes in USA laws and constitution, as well as, behind all regressive changes are usually different main purposes in each particular case to explain why this particular change was proposed and implemented at this particular time and not earlier or later.
I, personally, as foreign born USA citizen consider USA attitude in general as having too much of suicidal elements. This kind of amendment looks, therefore, as an urgent one. So, it seems to me that it would be proposed and go through in the nearest future. |
|
