Other Columns by Paul M. Weyrich
Paul M. Weyrich Bio

Printer-Friendly Version

Page 2 of 2

In his prepared remarks Vaszyoni made very clear that "the laws of this country never have been written with the exceptions in mind. Among other things, the framers of the Constitution distinguished themselves by writing few laws, and employing language at once broad and concise, so as to be applicable to all circumstances at all times."

Many would be right to harbor suspicion that a foreign-born president would tilt U.S. foreign policy one way or another toward his native country. For instance, if a native-born Cuban, now a naturalized U.S. citizen, became President and we invaded Cuba to topple Castro, that act alone would most likely be a very divisive political issue. The intensity of the debate is certain to become magnified when the President's loyalty is questioned. Was he acting to settle old scores? Or was he acting in the true interest of our country? The Founding Fathers in writing the Constitution made sure that question need never be asked.

Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), a proponent of amending the Constitution along the lines recommended by Senator Hatch, commented in a December 12, 2004 Miami Herald story that the Constitution "tells immigrants that they are somehow flawed."

From a world view America has been uncharacteristically generous in offering immigrants opportunities and freedom. Certainly my own father knew this, having left Germany in the 1920s when it was experiencing economic turmoil in the wake of World War I. Undoubtedly Governor Schwarzenegger knows the generosity of this country. Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL), who is constitutionally prohibited from ever holding the presidency, has stated: "I don't know of any other country where the electoral process is so open to foreign-born citizens." Our country still offers freedom and opportunity to legal immigrants and it should remain that way.

Senator Hatch is quite serious about his proposal and in fact one Democrat staff member of the Senate Judiciary Committee told me that the Senator met with his Democratic Judiciary Committee to discuss combining his amendment with a removal of the two-term limit on the presidency. The thinking is that the addition of removing the two-term bar on the presidency would be a sweetener to Democrats who would see it as a way to put Bill Clinton -- an electable Democrat with proven national popularity -- back in the White House.

The Senator's press spokesperson denied that the Senator has given serious thought or even entertained combining the two measures. He could not say with complete certainty that Senator Hatch has not been in a meeting in which the subject was broached by Senate Democrats, inasmuch as meetings between members of opposite parties occur all the time in the Senate.

Ratifying a constitutional amendment is a lengthy procedure. My colleague, Marion Edwyn Harrison, Esq., President of the Free Congress Foundation, summarized it succinctly last year when he wrote "the House and Senate must each pass a proposed amendment by a two-thirds vote and then 38 of the 50 States must ratify it -- and all within whatever time frame, if any, is legislated as part of the package." Our Founding Fathers intended it that way. Changes to the principles upon which our nation is governed are not to be made in haste or with great frequency.

There are some changes that were important to the Constitution. Constitutional amendments deserve serious review on a case-by-case basis. In this case, however, there is no need to amend the Constitution.

------------

Paul M. Weyrich is Chairman and CEO of the Free Congress Foundation.

--------------------

Note -- The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, and/or philosophy of GOPUSA.

>> Back -- Page 1 2