> Orrin Hatch and Barney Frank have bills in Congress to initiate the
> amendment process and remove the "natural born" clause. --CGE
In the abstract, perhaps, there might be a good argument for such an amendment. It seems to be clearly discriminatory, dating from the beginnings of the Republic, when Americans were quite paranoid about foreigners taking over the country. Today, though, it just seems an outdated 18th-century hang-over, like the electoral college.
But at this point, any attempt to argue for such an amendment would be taken as a necessary step in an Terminator-for-President drive, which would arouse a lot of controversy (I don't think the rest of the country is quite as charmed by AS as the batty Californians seem to be, but I'm obviously crossing my fingers). Besides, it's extremely difficult for a constitutional amendment to get through all the obstacles in its way. The percentage of proposed amendments that actually get into the Constitution must be less than 1%.
Folks, before we lean on the panic button too hard, let's remember that *two-thirds* of *both* houses of Congress need to propose the amendment, and *three-fourths* of the states have to sign off on it. Is it really likely, even in today's climate, that there will be that much support for AS? I personally doubt it (though, again, I'm crossing my fingers).
Jon Johanning // jjohanning at igc.org __________________________________ When I was a little boy, I had but a little wit, 'Tis a long time ago, and I have no more yet; Nor ever ever shall, until that I die, For the longer I live the more fool am I. -- Wit and Mirth, an Antidote against Melancholy (1684)