Should the united states of america change its constitution to allow for foreign born Presidents?
104433
Yeah--Ahhhnold has done such a great job with California that we should let him run the whole place, right?\n\nI think it's worth discussing, but you're talking about a constitutional change.  That requires not just both houses of Congress going along, but 37 state legislatures signing off on it too.  I don't think that will EVER happen.
496026
Yes,use your imagination JUST_,I would vote for this if it were to follow the original constitution.There is a lot of"MEN" who would support having this come to fruition.We have a country that rejects its men,allows illegals to come in to any state,allows women to kill their unborn children,who would be living breathing people if they didn`t and allow people who are not citizens to acquire disability who can not speak English.Something that a six week night course could cure.The list could go on for hours but In the correct form I WOULD do what you ask. GOOD QUESTION!
522623
How are our immigration laws unconstitutional? The Constitution applies to AMERICAN CITIZENS.
603304
Because Presidents are supposed to be born in the country they run...\nIs just a rule, and I think it applies to every country.\nIt can be a bit shallow if you consider that if you arrived to a new country when you were 1 year old, you are practically from that country but... what can I say?\nYou can still be governor though. Ask Mr. Schwarzenegger.\n\nGoodluck!
27466
sure.  \n\n1.  it's law and it's written into the US constitution.  most constitutional amendments have been small alterations or additions to the document.  anything that fundamentally changes the structure of the US government sets a dangerous precedent - i.e. that those in power in washington can muck around with the system.  what's next - congress appoints judges instead of the president?  it is a slippery-slope argument, to be sure, but the "if it ain't broke" cliche is a cliche for a reason.\n\n2.  the electoral college was designed so that a president couldn't be elected by appealing to a particular region that was denser or more highly-populated than the others.  this was a big worry to the founders, who feared that a particular state or region might become so populous that it could single-handedly determine who became president.  the electoral college solves this by ensuring a president is elected with a broad geographical consensus.  small states are given extra weight in order to tip the scales back in their favor.\n\n3.  the electoral college maintains the two-party system.  it is very difficult for parties other than the two main left-right parties to break into national politics because of the winner-takes-all nature of the electoral college.  this can be seen as a negative - good ideas and minority interests are left behind - but also as a positive.  a two-party system is dynamic, and the issues over which they disagree move back and forth with the political will of the people.  politicans have to be re-elected, so a politician trying to win votes has to do it by moving to whatever position his constituents demand.\n\nlots of people will say this is a bad system, but it is efficient.  the US government gets things done, despite all the yammering and garbage that comes emanating from washington.  compare it, for instance, to the italian parliament, which with 16 parties is a very open system, but there is such frequent disagreement and bickering that nothing -ever- gets done.  a two-party system makes it very easy for there to be a majority consensus, and some would say this is the strength of american democracy.  i leave it to you to decide.\n\nthere are a lot more pros to be considered - i would like to point you to a document written by the deputy director of the federal election commission.  it is an excellent read and there is a section on pros and cons towards the end of the document.  i include the link below.
777370
To become president of the U.S. a candidate must be 35 years or older (not 45 as another poster stated), he must be born in the U.S. and be a resident of the U.S. for a minimum of 14 years.
918521
Sadly, yes....\n\nLiberty for... the rich, the powerful and only if you were born an American.
757207
ARTICLE II, Section 1:\n"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."\nYou have to be 35 by the time you are sworn in at noon on the 20th day of January (AMENDMENT XX, Section 1)
426602
you cant just live in the US for a certain length of time, you have to be born there. Look at arnie. he has lived in the US for years, but he will never be able to be the president!
800430
Aside from the monumental task of amending the Constitution to do this (basically Amending the current Federal system out of existence), how do you propose governing each "region?"\n\nDifferent States have fifferent geographical, demographic, and geological bases, and one "set of laws" would not cover all.\n\nNot to mention, without states, "popular vote" would decide the Presidency, and no regions other than the former New York, California, and Texas would ever see a Presidental Candidate.\n\nBut if you guys who live in States want to give up your rights/responsibilities to govern yourselves, go ahead - we Commonwealths will just take over...
1138848
Legally, someone born in another country cannot run for President of the US.
542121
Why?  Quite simply because the constitution was written that way.  One other attribute of the constitution was that changing it is very hard to do.  Changing the constitution to require term limits for US Senators or House Members would require them to support it; and that isn't going to happen now or probably ever.
122471
no.. you have to be an american by birth, in the united states.. besides would you want an israili or packistani in the oval office???  HELLO..
727063
No.  It's a fine rule to have.  It stops a foreigner coming here and "sleeping" for 20 years and taking control of one branch of the government.  Any foreign-born person interested in serving his or her adopted country has plenty of other opportunities to serve.
330681
The world would be a much better place. The US would no longer have those selfcentred presidents, they would speak correctly and we may even get them to write correctly. In fact the US should probably be allowed to vote to rejoin the United Kingdom. They just love the royal family and they all want to come and see the UK.\nBut we need to sort out the taxes before we allowed them back.
1106178
No, but I would support a Constitutional Amendment that states, that no Bush, family, or friend of the Bush family can EVER hold public office anytime or anywhere in any state, territory or holding of the United States of America.
957278
U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5:\n\n"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."\n\nThose are all the requirements.