Somewhat related to birthers. Would you support a Constitutional amendment to remove the "natural born" citizen requirement for President? -- nm
Posted by
Dano (aka dano)
May 8 '11, 18:45
|
(No message)
|
Responses:
-
No. It's a good deal -- nm
-
Epiphany
May 8, 19:47
-
Don't see a point. Would oppose it if we were bringing it in up here. -- nm
-
Name Withheld By Request
May 8, 19:14
1
-
If we do ever try to change it though, I want it to be on principle and not for a specific person or situation. -- nm
-
ty97
May 8, 19:11
1
-
nah -- nm
-
Jovian
May 8, 19:01
-
Unsure. Thinking no? But I have no good reason. Natural Born Citizen does need to be *defined* however. -- nm
-
ty97
May 8, 18:57
4
-
I don't know that I'd oppose it, but I also wouldn't go out of my way to push it. -- nm
-
Ender
May 8, 18:52
1
-
I am much more concerned about this "corporations are "people" with political free speach rights' thing -- nm
-
zeitgeist
May 8, 18:51
2
-
no. -- nm
-
loosilu
May 8, 18:51
-
no -- nm
-
Beaker
May 8, 18:50
-
The EU does not have one. Arnie, being a US citizen now, can actually become Pres there, and he's apparently already considered going for it.. -- nm
-
Facto
May 8, 18:49
16
-
No. -- nm
-
Krusty
May 8, 18:49
-
Nope. -- nm
-
ReluctantCynic
May 8, 18:46
-
I would support a change to help clarify it, but I think that can be done by US Code definition. -- nm
-
Max
May 8, 18:46
2
-
No. -- nm
-
nubby
May 8, 18:45
|
Replies are disabled on threads older than 7 days.
|
|