|
|
Post by TheSantaBarbarian on Nov 1, 2008 14:45:19 GMT -5
Okay, we know that you have to be a citizen to runfor/be presifent. How about the line of succession? Does the VP have the same requirement to get their job? More interesting is the Speaker of the House. Eiother of them could end up aws President.
|
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Nov 1, 2008 14:57:46 GMT -5
Yes, VP has to meet the same requirements. It's no longer spelled out, though. The original rule was that the candidate for Pres who got the second-most number of electoral votes was VP.
The Speaker does not need to meet the same eligibility requirements. You only have to be 25 to be elected to the House, for instance, but nobody who is 25 is going to be Speaker. The main issue might be that you can be foreign-born and get elected to the House.
|
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Nov 1, 2008 15:02:31 GMT -5
www.usconstitution.net/consttop_succ.htmlThe author of this web page asserts that if someone in the line of succession does not meet the requirements for President then they would be skipped over. I'm not sure if that is actually codified into the law or not.
|
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Nov 1, 2008 15:05:12 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by OverAndUnder on Nov 1, 2008 15:09:50 GMT -5
In theory, a naturalized citizen could be in the line of succession. For example, those who serve in the House of Representatives only need to have been United States citizens for a minimum of 7 years, and Cabinet Secretaries may be any citizen.
HOWEVER, the Constitution specifically defines that the President must be a native-born citizen. My understanding is that anyone who does not meet the eligibility requirements is simply skipped, and the position goes to the next eligible successor on the list.
|
|
|
|
Post by TheSantaBarbarian on Nov 1, 2008 15:22:56 GMT -5
Interesting, thanks for the info.
|
|
|
|
Post by georgia(pacific)girl on Nov 1, 2008 15:59:28 GMT -5
I believe this was quite the topic of discussion during Nixon's presidency with Henry Kissinger being the Secretary of State.
|
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Nov 1, 2008 16:06:58 GMT -5
I believe this was quite the topic of discussion during Nixon's presidency with Henry Kissinger being the Secretary of State. The Governator is also quite vocal about this particular requirement being unfair. I agree with him in this case, and would support removing the requirement that Presidents must be native-born. |
|
|
|
Post by chipNdink on Nov 1, 2008 16:08:18 GMT -5
Ask Arnold Schwarzenegger; I'm sure he's tried to figure out any and all possible angles to worm his way into the White House.
Never mind, I see above someone else beat me to the punch line. Oh well, if Arnold is complaining, that must mean he hasn't figured out a way yet.
One possibility is for him to be appointed head of Homeland Security, create a Gestapo, arrest the sitting President, declare martial law, and have himself declared dictator for life.
Another possibility is for him to travel back in time, kill Sarah Conner, and ...
|
|
|
|
Post by bunnywailer on Nov 1, 2008 18:29:16 GMT -5
Arnold would be a good President. He's technically a Republican, but he isn't that far right of center. Plus he has a keen understanding of how to work the game of politics to get things done. He has also been diligent and worked hard during his stint as Governator - he has been noticeably absent in this year's election and hasn't stumped for anyone, mostly because he is putting in long hours trying to resolve California's crisises. He also has ties to the Democrats through his wife, and although they can differ on ideology, that is at least an informal channel to one of the longbeards in the Democratic Party, namely Ted Kennedy.
I don't think the US Constitution will change in Arnold's lifetime, I wonder if he will remain in politics after Governating. Can you believe he's over 60 already? Yikes.
|
|
|
|
Post by chipNdink on Nov 1, 2008 19:42:35 GMT -5
Arnold would be a good President. .... No he wouldn't. Even members of his own party were recently considering joining a petition to recall him. |
|
|
|
Post by bunnywailer on Nov 1, 2008 20:18:38 GMT -5
Arnold would be a good President. .... No he wouldn't. Even members of his own party were recently considering joining a petition to recall him. Since you were once again too lazy to cite a source, I'll do it for you. www.sacbee.com/static/weblogs/capitolalertlatest/015658.htmlIt should be noted that it is not the entire GOP of California that wanted to join the petition to recall, only a small group of disgrunted GOP conservatives. What would be interesting to research would be to find out who the members of the California Republican Assembly (CRA), the GOP group that was considering backing this petition, are. Since the correctional officer's union is the one that proposed the recall, and they are a powerful union labor force in any district that has major correctional facilities housed there, it's a no-brainer that they were putting pressure on these CRA members to take action. Moot point, though, the petition has been dropped by the guard's union. Guess they aren't gonna get the raises they want, no matter how much threatening they posture. The Governator has done a good job in his tenure. His refusal to play partisan politics and to make the right fiscal decisions and the tough fiscal decisions are what makes him effective. Sure, the prison guards, the teachers, and other various state workers' unions are probably pissed off at him, but he continues to make the right decisions to bring California back from the brink of economic failure. Any guess who put California in this fiscal mess in the first place? You lose yet again. That makes you 0-3. |
|
|
|
Post by bunnywailer on Nov 1, 2008 20:31:21 GMT -5
2 articles that show the Governator is still hard at work, and, doing the right things: www.latimes.com/news/local/la-fi-unemployment1-2008nov01,0,3828857.story www.californiaprogressreport.com/2008/10/speaker_of_cali.htmlFor the record, I think Gray Davis was unfairly made a whipping boy for stuff he inherited as Governor of California. However, the difference between Davis and Schwarzenegger is that the Governator brings leadership and action. It was a bum deal that Davis had to deal with the energy crisis in California in the early 2000's, but I think if he had been more proactive and shown more leadership in at least addressing the problems, like the Governator is doing now, he might not have been recalled in the first place. The fact that the Governator is his own man, and puts solving the state's problems ahead of any partisanship is precisely why he is a GOOD governor and also why he would be a good President, if he were eligible to run. |
|
|
|
Post by TheSantaBarbarian on Nov 1, 2008 23:43:04 GMT -5
I have to agree with SOB on this one. Gasp!  He has been strong on the environment and has done things like starting the stern cell institute. I don't agree with him on everything ( like I wish he wasn't campaigning for McCain) but I would vote for him for Pres. As a matter of fact, if he were in this election, he might well get my vote over Obama. I might add that when he first was "elected" I was anything but a fan. |
|
|
|
Post by chipNdink on Nov 2, 2008 2:10:34 GMT -5
You two are in the minority. His approval rating is only about 38%.
|
|
He has been strong on the environment and has done things like starting the stern cell institute. I don't agree with him on everything ( like I wish he wasn't campaigning for McCain) but I would vote for him for Pres. As a matter of fact, if he were in this election, he might well get my vote over Obama. I might add that when he first was "elected" I was anything but a fan.