Support NeoGAF

[DarienA]

CBS News

"The Terminator" as president?

Arnold Schwarzenegger says he would like to at least be able to entertain the thought, but the U.S. Constitution prevents foreign-born people from holding America's highest office.

So the Austrian-born governor of California tells Correspondent Morley Safer he favors a constitutional amendment to enable him to run for president.

Safer's interview with Schwarzenegger will be broadcast on 60 Minutes, Sunday, Oct. 31, at 7 p.m. ET/PT.

"Yes, absolutely (I would like to be eligible to run for president)," Schwarzenegger tells Safer. "Why not? With my way of thinking, you always shoot for the top."

Schwarzenegger favors an amendment that would make him eligible, but says he's too busy doing the job he promised to do for California voters to think about becoming president now.

"There are so many things I have to do in California, and my promise was to straighten out the mess in California," he tells Safer.

So how's he doing on that score? "Ten being the highest, I would give myself an eight," says Schwarzenegger. "I think I fell short on some of the things. Probably the communication with the legislators."

The California Republican called Democratic state legislators his now famous epithet, "girlie men," for not admitting they put special interests ahead of the public good, and for balking on his budget.

"It drove them nuts, but the interesting thing about it is, the following week, they signed the budget exactly the way it was a week before," Schwarzenegger points out.

It's not the first time Schwarzenegger has appeared on 60 Minutes. In a humorous moment, Safer shows the one-time Mr. Universe some clips from a 1977 60 Minutes profile featuring the younger, more-muscled weightlifting star of the '70s.

"You have to get me a tape of that," says Schwarzenegger.

 

[Lucky Forward]

Cool, I'll have to watch for that right after the Patriots beat the Steelers.

...the younger, more-muscled weightlifting star of the '70s.

Arnold was a bodybuilder, not a weightlifter. It may be a trivial distinction to some, but it's yet another example of a news article that shows they don't understand the subject they're writing about.

 

[Teddman]

2008!

 

[NLB2]

Cool, I'll have to watch for that right after the Patriots beat the Steelers.


Arnold was a bodybuilder, not a weightlifter. It may be a trivial distinction to some, but it's yet another example of a news article that shows they don't understand the subject they're writing about.

Did Arnold not lift weights?

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

To prevent some repetition, here is the last big thread on a potential President Arnold.

 

[levious]

Did Arnold not lift weights?

I think the distinction is that bodybuilders are judged on their look while weightlifters compete by actually lifting.

 

[Lucky Forward]

Did Arnold not lift weights?

He did, but only as a means toward the end of building his body. Weightlifting is an entirely separate sport, populated by stocky, big-bellied men who perform certain lifts in competition (as in the Olympics).

Ray Lewis lifts weights, but that doesn't make him a weightlifting star either.

 

[levious]

Milk is for babies, I drink beer.

Republican or not, he'd have my vote!

 

[SyNapSe]

It's in the Constitution for a reason, leave it.

 

[maharg]

It will happen. There can be no doubt about it.

 

[DarienA]

It's in the Constitution for a reason, leave it.

What was that reason again?

 

[levious]

I can't think of a valid reason, I would guess it was due to fear of foreign influence.

I'd support lifting this restriction, not for Arnold specifically, but just so there is no second class group of citizens.

 

[SyNapSe]

What was that reason again?

Not wanting foreign born people taking over the highest office of your country needs explanation?

 

[human5892]

It's in the Constitution for a reason, leave it.

...is it so the no-good Brits can't come in here and tell us how to live our lives again?

Not wanting foreign born people taking over the highest office of your country needs explanation?

Yes, actually, since I fail to see how they'd be any less effective at leading just because they were born somewhere else.

 

[DarienA]

Not wanting foreign born people taking over the highest office of your country needs explanation?

Yes it does. So foreign born can run a state but not the country? Why let them even run a state?

I'd also mention as a side-bar that slavery existed when the consitution was drawn up.... but it wasn't mentioned at all in the original constitution. i.e. the original Consitution wasn't a perfect document, that's what the Amendments were/are for.

 

[levious]

Not wanting foreign born people taking over the highest office of your country needs explanation?

They would not be taking over, they would have to be elected like any other candidate. Your choice of words shows a lot. This rule was based on fear, maybe it made sense in another era, but not in modern times.

And the chances of a foreign born person actually winning is probably less than a non-christian minority, so there's really no reason to fear it.

 

[SyNapSe]

Yes, actually, since I fail to see how they'd be any less effective at leading just because they were born somewhere else.

It's in there to prevent a foreign power from usurping control of our government. Not because people born in other nations don't have the capacity to lead.

 

[DarienA]

It's in there to prevent a foreign power from usurping control of our government. Not because people born in other nations don't have the capacity to lead.

You do release that the president isn't a dictator and there are checks and balances in the House and Senate to prevent something like that from happening right? Clinton got thrown out for lying about a blow job man.

And can you describe WTF usurping control of our government actually means?

 

[levious]

Would we allow a natural born citizen who holds dual citizenship with another nation to be elected president under the current rule? I'd see that as highly hypocritical if true.

 

[bishoptl]

The Japanese tried to take over Peru, and they'll come after you next! Hold firm, America!

 

[SyNapSe]

I'd also mention as a side-bar that slavery existed when the consitution was drawn up.... but it wasn't mentioned at all in the original constitution. i.e. the original Consitution wasn't a perfect document, that's what the Amendments were/are for.

Obviously nothing is perfect, and the Amendments should always be considered. It is afterall a 200+ year old document.

Slavery was allowed by people not following the constitution, or at least... swerving there way around it. Someone can correct me but I thought they justified slavery by saying Africans weren't men but more "animals" thus All men are created equal really didn't apply.

 

[human5892]

It's in there to prevent a foreign power from usurping control of our government.

:lol

 

[Shiggy]

An Austrian as president -> that's bad

 

[SyNapSe]

You do release that the president isn't a dictator and there are checks and balances in the House and Senate to prevent something like that from happening right? Clinton got thrown out for lying about a blow job man.

And can you describe WTF usurping control of our government actually means?

The President can declare war on any nation without anyone's approval. The House and Senate can only vote after War has commenced.

Yes, I realize that there are checks and balances for everything, and that the chances of anything ever happening are extremely extremely unlikely.

 

[DarienA]

Obviously nothing is perfect, and the Amendments should always be considered. It is afterall a 200+ year old document.

Slavery was allowed by people not following the constitution, or at least... swerving there way around it. Someone can correct me but I thought they justified slavery by saying Africans weren't men but more "animals" thus All men are created equal really didn't apply.

Slavery isn't mentioned at all in the original Constitution, at all... not for or against, simply not mentioned, and at that point in the country's life slavery was firmly entrenched in the US. So no slavery wasn't just by people skirting the law. Though many of them did drop them even the Founding Fathers at some point did have slaves themselves.

The President can declare war on any nation without anyone's approval. The House and Senate can only vote after War has commenced.

Yes, I realize that there are checks and balances for everything, and that the chances of anything ever happening are extremely extremely unlikely.

To my knowledge the president cannot declare war on his own. Let me do a bit of quick researching. The key word being 'war'. Yes the president can send troops in to conflict, but the president does not declare war:

MSN Encarta

It's funny that in the end it comes down to semantics. ....and one again I'll point out that our current US born, native president sent troops in to conflict, and the reasons he gave congress and the US public have mostly turned out to be untrue....

 

[SyNapSe]

To my knowledge the president cannot declare war on his own. Let me do a bit of quick researching. The key word being 'war'. Yes the president can send troops in to conflict, but the president does not declare war:

It's funny that in the end it comes down to semantics. ....and one again I'll point out that our current US born, native president sent troops in to conflict, and the reasons he gave congress and the US public have mostly turned out to be untrue....

Fair enough, the President can't declare "war". Yup, no doubt there are plenty of crappy leaders we could pick from our own population.

 

[maharg]

Clinton got thrown out for lying about a blow job man.

*ahem* Clinton did not get thrown out at all. He didn't even preemptively resign like Nixon did. Only two presidents, afaik, have been brought to an impeachment trial (Johnson and Clinton) and neither were successfuly put out of office for it. Maybe Nixon would have lost his impeachment though.

 

[FortNinety]

So, when do you guys think the Franchise War will start?

 

[DarienA]

*ahem* Clinton did not get thrown out at all. He didn't even preemptively resign like Nixon did.

Yes that's true, but it pretty much doomed any change of him being re-elected... and he was trounced publically about it... IMO Bush hasn't been close to being dissected by the public/private sectors like Clinton was. Though it was outrageous for the calls for Clinton impeachment Bush hasn't even come close to having anyone speak the I word about his term.

 

[levious]

did you mean it hurt Gore's chances to get elected?

 

[maharg]

Well I think the constitution is actually what screwed his chances for reelection since it was his second term. Still, I'm not sure it did have that much of an impact on him. I think polls at the time found most people more annoyed by it than anything. It mostly just enraged the people who already hated him. Much like Bush's actions do.

I think it's sort of safe to say that Bush is almost the anti-Clinton.

 

[Dan]

Slavery isn't mentioned at all in the original Constitution, at all... not for or against, simply not mentioned, and at that point in the country's life slavery was firmly entrenched in the US. So no slavery wasn't just by people skirting the law. Though many of them did drop them even the Founding Fathers at some point did have slaves themselves.

Although there was the Three-Fifths Compromise...

Clause 3: Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

Which I think made clear how certain classes within American society were treated, even if it's a somewhat indirect reference, especially since the sentence inherently states that those "other Persons" were not "free" or "bound to Service for a Term of Years."

 

[DarienA]

did you mean it hurt Gore's chances to get elected?

Well I think the constitution is actually what screwed his chances for reelection since it was his second term. Still, I'm not sure it did have that much of an impact on him. I think polls at the time found most people more annoyed by it than anything. It mostly just enraged the people who already hated him. Much like Bush's actions do.

I think it's sort of safe to say that Bush is almost the anti-Clinton.

<beats head against wall>

Ok time to get my dunce sign.. I've overstepped my knowledge bounds today.

 

[Dan]

Well I think the constitution is actually what screwed his chances for reelection since it was his second term.

That'd be the 22nd Amendment.

 

[MetatronM]

I don't see why we need to revise the CONSTITUTION solely for the sake of Arnold Schwarzenegger of all people.

 

[Santo]

Arnold works for the CIA!!!! At least in True Lies he did.

 

[xsarien]

I'm fine with it, but can I get a head start on the three seashells? I have a feeling I won't figure that whole thing out right away.

 

[MrPing1000]

Hilary Clinton vs Arnold Schwarzenegger

the greatest presidential race of all time

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

I don't see why we need to revise the CONSTITUTION solely for the sake of Arnold Schwarzenegger of all people.

Not just him, of course, but he's a popular public example of a class being denied the chance.

 

[borghe]

I swear to fucking god, if 2008 is hillary vs. schwarzenegger, I will vote. I haven't voted in the 11 years I have been able to. but I would vote then just to a) keep killary out of office, b) get the terminator in office, and c) participate in an event that will go down in American history.

As for not letting a non-natve being president, that is just as fucking archaic as the electoral fucking college and virtually every other misinterpreted law in our god damn constitution. According to Wisconsin's state constitution I am supposed to get a piece of cheese for free with every meal purchased. where's my fucking cheese?!? American legislatures need to do a better job of adapting laws for the times.

 

[Dan]

I swear to fucking god, if 2008 is hillary vs. schwarzenegger, I will vote. I haven't voted in the 11 years I have been able to. but I would vote then just to a) keep killary out of office, b) get the terminator in office, and c) participate in an event that will go down in American history.

What presidential election has not gone down in American history?

 

[borghe]

What presidential election has not gone down in American history?

touche

I meant an election beyond "ho humm. voting for another president"

I don't think there has been an interesting election before 2000 since ummm.. I don't even know.. long before I was born.

 

[J2 Cool]

Hilary Clinton vs Arnold Schwarzenegger

the greatest presidential race of all time

So true, the debates would be amazing and seeing Bill Clinton and The fugly wife of Arnie on their sides. Biggest ratings of all time. I'd throw down for Arnold as would about every guy in the US. Every woman expect a vote for Hillary unless they've always had a think for the Terminator.

I think Arnold could do it. He not only became the greatest bodybuilder in the world, and not only the biggest action star, but now in politcal office he's rising the ranks and is already govenor. He really is inspirational. He never just sat still and seen himself deteriorate as an action star. If you ever see his movie Pumping Iron too he says he wants to be the biggest movie star in the world and actually does it. I think that boldness is a real strength to believe you can do anything. Now the guy wants to become president, I say go for it.

 

[Matt]

As for not letting a non-natve being president, that is just as fucking archaic as the electoral fucking college and virtually every other misinterpreted law in our god damn constitution.

Neither of those issues has been misinterpreted, the Constitution is very clear on both of them.

 

[borghe]

allow me to elaborate -

the electoral college and non-native presidential nominee were put into the constitution to account for the conditions of the country at the time, much like my supposed free piece of cheese in the WI state consitution. Times have changed, and so too should the laws.

At this point, I can't say I am real impressed with where "natively born" americans have taken this country. I certainly can't imagine foreign born citizens could do any worse.

as for the electoral college, when you can have a presidential candidate be voted for BY THE MAJORITY OF THE CITIZENS OF THE VOTING POPULATION and STILL LOSE, there is something wrong with your system. The voters spoke, they wanted Gore, but Bush still one. Explain that one away.

and I am more conservative and even I think it was fucked up that GW won. the electoral college is broke and native american politicians are taking this country to hell.. we need to adapt the laws to our modern fucked up society.

 

[Swordian]

I'd throw down for Arnold as would about every guy in the US.

This is what got him eleceted governor and this is exactly why he shouldn't be allowed to run for President. In case you hadn't noticed, Arnold is a terrible governor. He won because of the "It would be totally awesome if Arnold was Governor!!!111one" mentality.

 

[borghe]

In order to appreciate the reasons for the Electoral College, it is
essential to understand its historical context and the problem that the
Founding Fathers were trying to solve. They faced the difficult question of
how to elect a president in a nation that:

-- was composed of thirteen large and small States jealous of their own
rights and powers and suspicious of any central national government
-- contained only 4,000,000 people spread up and down a thousand miles of
Atlantic seaboard barely connected by transportation or communication
(so that national campaigns were impractical even if they had been
thought desirable)
-- believed, under the influence of such British political thinkers as Henry
St John Bolingbroke, that political parties were mischievous if not
downright evil, and
-- felt that gentlemen should not campaign for public office (The saying
was "The office should seek the man, the man should not seek the
office.").

How, then, to choose a president without political parties, without
national campaigns, and without upsetting the carefully designed balance
between the presidency and the Congress on one hand and between the
States and the federal government on the other?

http://www.fec.gov/pdf/eleccoll.pdf

so please tell me how ANY of that is relevant today? The only one that even comes close is number three but with the ridiculous amounts of lobbying today the system is already as corrupt as it can get.

A third idea was to have the president elected by a direct popular vote.

Direct election was rejected not because the Framers of the Constitution
doubted public intelligence but rather because they feared that without
sufficient information about candidates from outside their State, people
would naturally vote for a "favorite son" from their own State or region. At
worst, no president would emerge with a popular majority sufficient to
govern the whole country. At best, the choice of president would always be
decided by the largest, most populous States with little regard for the
smaller ones.

In the day of the information age this seems hardly relevant, not to mention the current implementation of the electoral college still gives California more votes than WY, VT, SD, MT, DC, DE, AK, HI, ID, ME, RI, NH and more COMBINED! Because it is based on house seats and because house seats are based on population, it STILL is based on population, only now if everyone in WI gets out and votes it is still offset by CA EVEN if a minority amount of Californians comes out to vote.

 

[levious]

At this point, I can't say I am real impressed with where native americans have taken this country.

 

[SyNapSe]

as for the electoral college, when you can have a presidential candidate be voted for BY THE MAJORITY OF THE CITIZENS OF THE VOTING POPULATION and STILL LOSE, there is something wrong with your system. The voters spoke, they wanted Gore, but Bush still one. Explain that one away.

That's simple to explain. The only thing that matters is votes within a state, your taking a gross number of votes across the nation.

We aren't France, we are a UNION of states. Each state having their own interests and laws. If someday California had a population of 800 million people and all 49 other states only had a combined population of 200 million people... pretty much what California voted for would win.

Would Californian's give a fuck about environmental problems in Alaska, or farmers growing corn in Nebraska that couldn't afford to live. Of course they wouldn't, the majority of the 800 million Californian's would vote for someone who had their interests in mind.

 

[belgurdo]

Isn't he Italian?

edit: God bless Snopes...Italian-American