Constitutional Amendments We May See In Our Lifetime

Simply Joel · Post by **Simply Joel** » Mon Nov 22, 2004 4:05 am

I once thought the Equal Rights Amendment would be passed...

So, since that one went by the wayside...

The same-sex marriage amendment was dead as an idea because of its exclusionary intent.

Here is the newest inclusionary amendment idea...

Feel free to submit your ideas for "inclusionary" amendments.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
November 22, 2004
The 28th Amendment
By WILLIAM SAFIRE

Los Angeles —

Like a cloud no bigger than a man's hand, the 28th amendment to the U.S. Constitution is gathering on the political horizon.

No, it's not the anti-same-sex amendment that President Bush supports. Only if the Supreme Court strikes down the federal Defense of Marriage Act - or if it overturns the changes in state constitutions adopted to block recognition of same-sex marriages legal elsewhere - will that proposed amendment have a remote chance of gaining support of two-thirds of the Congress and 38 states.

The founders made it hard to amend the Constitution, but since the Bill of Rights, it's been done on the average of once every 12 years. It's time to end discrimination based on place of birth that denies the equal right of every citizen to run for president.

Article II of the Constitution directed that in the future only "natural born" citizens would be eligible for the nation's highest office. There may have been reason for suspicion of the foreign-born as the nation was in formation, but that nativist bias has no place in a nation proud of its "golden door."

When an immigrant is naturalized, his or her citizenship becomes as natural as "natural born." The oath taken and the pledge of allegiance given make the immigrant 100 percent American, with all the rights, privileges and obligations appertaining thereto. All except one - the right to the greatest political success.

That makes all naturalized citizens - including taxpayers, voters, servicemembers - slightly less than all-American. Even children born abroad of U.S. citizens have fallen under the shadow of Article II; this has caused pregnant women to race back to our shores to make certain their children's political potential is not somehow beclouded.

The unequalizer in our Constitution cries out for fixing. Some of us have been muttering about this for decades, but it's always been academic - a theoretical exercise in excising a discriminatory phrase whose purpose has long since atrophied.

Comes now Arnold Schwarzenegger, an immigrant from Austria who by a fluke of recall was able to circumvent the centrist-blocking primaries and get himself elected governor of California. Four of the last ten presidential elections have been won by former officeholders of that largest state in the Union.

Suddenly the theoretical possibility has taken human shape. If we cannot change Schwarzenegger into "natural born" (lay on, Macduff!), we can change the law to give "naturalized" its complete meaning.

He's a libertarian conservative, a man of the right whose popularity is rising on the Left Coast. Under the tutelage of former Secretary of State George Shultz and former Gov. Pete Wilson, he is using his celebrity, charisma and political moxie to break up the logrolling logjam that put this state into the hands of easily rolled legislators and budget-busting initiative rule.

Would he make a good national campaigner? No doubt. Would he make a good president? Much too soon to tell. He picks the best advisers and has been acting on their advice, but I get the impression Ah-nold is too full of himself. He would do well with the humility gained by a setback and a comeback.

He has been traveling to Israel and Japan, ostensibly for California's economy while burnishing his image as a potential world leader. Though modesty does not come easily to him, he professes to demur at the "Amend for Arnold" buttons that some supporters have been sporting to push for the 28th Amendment: Equal Rights for Immigrants.

My guess is that most liberals will be conflicted as this issue develops; antidiscrimination is an article of faith, but they don't want a yodeling Republican cowboy in the White House. Contrariwise, some right-wingers who look askance at a pro-choice candidate who is comfortable with gays are also closet nativists.

Yet both camps know that Hispanics make up the swingiest ethnic vote, growing each year, and could be influenced mightily by an issue like equal rights for immigrants.

One step up at a time. After ratification of the 28th Amendment in 2007, I envision a G.O.P. ticket the next year with Rudy Giuliani or John McCain on top and Schwarzenegger as running-mate. For Democrats, Evan Bayh or Hillary Clinton for president, Peter Jennings (Canadian-born) for v.p.

Chew that one over.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

tonytohono · Post by **tonytohono** » Mon Nov 22, 2004 5:59 am

Simply Joel wrote:Would he make a good national campaigner? No doubt. Would he make a good president? Much too soon to tell. He picks the best advisers and has been acting on their advice, but I get the impression Ah-nold is too full of himself.
Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

Does this person actually believe Ah-nold is going to accept a vice president nomination if our country actually amends the constitution in his favor? Highly unlikely. It's going to be like Bush whipping out that quote, The American people have given me the currency and I intend to spend it (whatever it was). Ah-nold will settle for nothing less than president if this amendment passes. With the intellect of our average citizen and what, with those spectacularly effective voting machines, how can he lose?

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Mon Nov 22, 2004 6:15 am

Last year on this thread:
http://eplaya.burningman.org/viewtopic. ... arzenegger

I proposed that there would be 2 amandments that would put schwarzenegger in office and got laughed at. The other amendment is the ban against gays. Watch how it will be used to get the amendment for schwarzenegger to get into office.

This was the plan a long time ago.

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Mon Nov 22, 2004 6:16 am

damn it. Amendment. I still dont need no stinkin edit button........DOH!

Simply Joel · Post by **Simply Joel** » Mon Nov 22, 2004 6:22 am

DVD Burner wrote:Last year on this thread:
http://eplaya.burningman.org/viewtopic. ... arzenegger

I proposed that there would be 2 amandments that would put schwarzenegger in office and got laughed at. The other amendment is the ban against gays. Watch how it will be used to get the amendment for schwarzenegger to get into office.

This was the plan a long time ago.

joel the ornery wrote: Joined: 31 Aug 2003
Posts: 149
Location: East Central Illinois
Posted: Sun Nov 02, 2003 5:13 am
Time will tell whether Arnold the Governor can govern.

Time will tell.
_________________
Onward into the abyss

my grumpier alternate ego wrote the above statement.

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Mon Nov 22, 2004 6:26 am

Yeah you did say that then huh?

Now that's really scary.

Simply Joel · Post by **Simply Joel** » Mon Nov 22, 2004 6:32 am

joel the ornery wrote:
Joined: 31 Aug 2003
Posts: 149
Location: East Central Illinois
Posted: Tue Nov 04, 2003 3:34 am Post subject: Re: "RESPECTING" their native tongue-WTF does t
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
aforceforgood wrote: If we say that immigrants should learn the language of the land we're racists or something? Huh? Why?

Uh, no, yet learning the language is voluntary... But when people act against someone based up race, creed, color, religion, ethnic origin, age, sex or disability THEN those actions against said people are/become illegal.

You can be prejudiced but you can't discriminate.

Have a nice equal opportunity day.

f*cking people suck, give me trees anyday.
_________________
Onward into the abyss

Last edited by joel the ornery on Tue Nov 04, 2003 3:48 am; edited 1 time in total

and i said this too...

tonytohono · Post by **tonytohono** » Mon Nov 22, 2004 6:34 am

Simply Joel wrote: my grumpier alternate ego wrote the above statement.

IE guilty of wearing the sock too...

Now I'm laughing my ass off.

Back to the issue at hand. Ah-nold has quite the approval rating in this state. I don't really care one way or the other. But I will say this: the man makes some pretty silly gaffs at times, so I feel like we at least have that in common. Only proves you don't have to be born in this state in order to develop the bad habits.

The one thing he has done is appoint some knucklehead to the DMV who wants to install GPS on every car in the state and tax everyone according to the actual mileage they drive. And then we can abolish the gas tax... yeah great idea.

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Mon Nov 22, 2004 6:35 am

Dont know what that one has to do with anything but .....ok.

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Mon Nov 22, 2004 6:36 am

sorry.

my last post was meant for Joel.

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Mon Nov 22, 2004 6:42 am

tonytohono wrote:
Simply Joel wrote: my grumpier alternate ego wrote the above statement.
IE guilty of wearing the sock too...

Now I'm laughing my ass off.

Back to the issue at hand. Ah-nold has quite the approval rating in this state. I don't really care one way or the other. But I will say this: the man makes some pretty silly gaffs at times, so I feel like we at least have that in common. Only proves you don't have to be born in this state in order to develop the bad habits.

The one thing he has done is appoint some knucklehead to the DMV who wants to install GPS on every car in the state and tax everyone according to the actual mileage they drive. And then we can abolish the gas tax... yeah great idea.

Amazing how when Davis was telling Californians that it was'nt he that was causing the blackouts but the energy companies in Texas Californians still blamed him. Now they have forgoten even after hearing the Enron tapes.

Not too bright huh?

Funny, on Dioxin we were laughing at someone that was worried that California was going to be the laughing stock olf the nation. There were a few of us that said, "California has always been the laughing stock of the nation.", now it's the Nation that's gonna be (not that it has'nt already been ) the laughing stock of the world.

tonytohono · Post by **tonytohono** » Mon Nov 22, 2004 6:43 am

NP DVD...

I kind of got how that fit in Joel.

I mean, if you compare the way our country deals with prejudice and discrimination, it only seems fair that the foreign born naturalized citizen should be as equal as the next. I just find it frightening that someone who could be a sleeper terrorist living here 20 years could eventually become our president...

it's been proven, all it takes is a lot of money and some decent advisors, and you can pull off becoming the president. Who has more money on this planet than the bin ladens and such?

Simply Joel · Post by **Simply Joel** » Mon Nov 22, 2004 7:08 am

hey, don't read too much into my re-posting, that was pretty much self-awe.

the only context is because it came from the same thread as DVD linked/referenced.

sorry for the confusion.

cowboyangel · Post by **cowboyangel** » Mon Nov 22, 2004 8:21 am

constitutional amendment 29:
Require presidential candidates to take a standard intelligence test to qualify for the position (also standing presidents )

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Mon Nov 22, 2004 9:25 am

tonytohono wrote:Back to the issue at hand. Ah-nold has quite the approval rating in this state. I don't really care one way or the other. But I will say this: the man makes some pretty silly gaffs at times, so I feel like we at least have that in common. Only proves you don't have to be born in this state in order to develop the bad habits.

I think he's a buffoon.

I'd also like to point out the bad track record of Austrians in foriegn goverments (think Maximillian of Mexico and Marie Antoinette, as well as the obvious) and the fact that 2/3 of presidents from California were unmitigated disasters and the other third wasn't much of a president either--dispite his popularity.

sputnik · Post by **sputnik** » Mon Nov 22, 2004 9:56 am

Hey Joel,

Can you give me a cite on that text? I tried googling for it but can't find the reference to the source.

Simply Joel · Post by **Simply Joel** » Mon Nov 22, 2004 9:58 am

sputnik wrote:Hey Joel,

Can you give me a cite on that text? I tried googling for it but can't find the reference to the source.

www.nytimes.com

yet, it requires registration to view.

sputnik · Post by **sputnik** » Mon Nov 22, 2004 10:05 am

Thanks. I should have figured that one out. Far too obvious for me today.

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Mon Nov 22, 2004 10:18 am

sputnik wrote:Thanks. I should have figured that one out. Far too obvious for me today.

Open skull, insert coffee, wait 5 minutes, curse Monday morning.

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Mon Nov 22, 2004 10:22 am

sputnik wrote:Thanks. I should have figured that one out. Far too obvious for me today.

Just so you know, It will not be that easy to find the articale with just the general info given. It would have still been nice to get the exact link.

Simply Joel · Post by **Simply Joel** » Mon Nov 22, 2004 10:26 am

DVD Burner wrote:
sputnik wrote:Thanks. I should have figured that one out. Far too obvious for me today.
Just so you know, It will not be that easy to find the articale with just the general info given. It would have still been nice to get the exact link.

a link won't do you any good if you aren't registered... or at least it never worked for me when i tried it.

i thought i made that plain enough long ago...

Safire's column is in the New York Times... feel free to register.

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Mon Nov 22, 2004 10:57 am

Simply Joel wrote:
DVD Burner wrote:
sputnik wrote:Thanks. I should have figured that one out. Far too obvious for me today.
Just so you know, It will not be that easy to find the articale with just the general info given. It would have still been nice to get the exact link.
a link won't do you any good if you aren't registered... or at least it never worked for me when i tried it.

i thought i made that plain enough long ago...

Safire's column is in the New York Times... feel free to register.

A link will work once registered. I am registered with the N.Y.T. have been for years now. If you put the link up and it ask to register, you can and just leave the window open afterwards and come back to this thread and click the link again. It will take you to the article.

Simply Joel · Post by **Simply Joel** » Mon Nov 22, 2004 11:03 am

sputnik,

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/22/opini ... re.html?hp

there you go, follow the directions above and DVD says the article will open.

Alpha · Post by **Alpha** » Mon Nov 22, 2004 12:25 pm

tonytohono wrote:The one thing he has done is appoint some knucklehead to the DMV who wants to install GPS on every car in the state and tax everyone according to the actual mileage they drive. And then we can abolish the gas tax... yeah great idea.

Gee, what's the difference between taxing how much gas you buy and how many miles you drive? Oh yeah: fuel efficiency! We wouldn't want Hummer owners to have to pay more taxes than those who own Civics, now would we?

diane o'thirst · Post by **diane o'thirst** » Sun Jan 16, 2005 7:52 pm

Keep in mind that the same Amendment that would allow Arnold to run for the Oval Office would also enable Madeleine Albright to do likewise. She'd have a better shot and be a better Prez than Hillary, that's for sure.

Imagine: not just a woman President, but a diplomat as well. And a well-respected one. She'd have my vote no matter which ticket she ran on.

diane o'thirst · Post by **diane o'thirst** » Sun Jan 16, 2005 8:08 pm

A mileage tax would be breaking the right of free travel. So is the gas tax. The former should be blocked, the latter should be struck down, and an excise tax imposed when you buy the vehicle. Waive the tax if you elect to convert the vehicle to propane, electric, solar, fuel cell or biodiesel at the time of purchase, or give tax credits if you do it later on down the road.

Also offer low- or no-cost government loans to convert, like California does for people converting their homes to solar power. Tax incentives to manufacturers who produce these alternative-power vehicles and offer them for sale to the general public.

I know Arnold favours the fuel cell industry and is for weaning us off fossil fuels, foreign or domestic.

Constitutional Amendments We May See In Our Lifetime

Constitutional Amendments We May See In Our Lifetime

Re: Constitutional Amendments We May See In Our Lifetime