It doesn't need changing

Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the United States Constitution:
"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

When the framers of the constitution wrote that, their main thought was to keep King George from running for and becoming President. The "official" reason probably didn't include that but, let's face it, that's why they put it that way and it has been a cornerstone of the Presidential election process ever since.

In late February of this year, on NBCs "Meet The Press," Arnold Schwarzenegger said anyone who has been a U.S. citizen for at least 20 years -- as he has -- should "absolutely" be able to seek the presidency. According to a story at CNN.com.

Now, a group calling itself Amend for Arnold is pushing for a constitutional amendment (I've heard there are actually four such amendments proposed) that would allow naturalized citizens to run for President. Constitutional amendments require congressional approval and ratification by 38 states.

Is this really such a good idea? True, the threat of interference from England is no longer a problem but there is more at stake here.

I'm not saying The Governator would make a bad President (I'm not saying he would make a good one, either) but these people are asking for a constitutional amendment for the benefit of one person. Amending the constitution, however, opens the door to anyone who meets the criteria.

Consider this, if you will. An amendment is passed that allows anyone who has been a U.S. citizen for at least 20 years and meets the other age requirements to run for President. Mr. Schwarzenegger runs, is elected, and turns out to be one of our greatest Presidents. Yay for Arnold. Yay for America. 20 years later, however, a naturalized citizen, who does not have the best interests of the United States at heart, runs for President. Somehow, he is elected and the citizens of the United States soon discover that he has planned this for the last twenty years. Soon, he starts granting preferential treatment to his country of origin. Then, he begins proposing legislation that reduces or eliminates diplomatic pressure on countries who are friendly to his home country but not necessarily to the United Stated. Within a matter of months, congress is bitterly divided among itself and against the President. Political progress comes to a standstill and leaves the United States open to any number of attacks (political and military) from inside and outside its borders.

I realize it's an extreme example but it could happen. If we leave the constitution as it is in regard to the Presidency, a 200+ year tradition remains that helps to ensure that the President has a vested interest in the country that he is leading. Oh, sure, an American citizen has as much power to bring about the scenario described above as anyone else but it's less likely to happen. Why do I feel that way? Well, for one, we have 200 years of history that says so. In addition, who is going to make that much trouble in the country he was born in?

If you ask me, I'm voting no.