Susan Estrich offers one more perspective on the proposed amendment to the Constitution which would permit foreign-born American citizens the opportunity to be President of the United States. In her piece, “Immigrant President? Why Not?,” she notes that valid reasons to support such a change do exist.

“Who could oppose a constitutional amendment that allows every American child to grow up dreaming of becoming president? Why should that dream be limited to those who happened to be born in this country, excluding the growing number of Americans who were born in other countries and are Americans by choice? Are they less loyal because of the place of their birth? Of course not.”

Meanwhile, she cites “only two” reasons to oppose such a change. One of the reasons she argues against the amendment “commutes between Brentwood and Sacramento.”

There is a strong possibility that Arnold Schwarzenegger will succeed in altering the Constitution. Estrich is not the only person to think so. Nor is she the only person who would prefer the Constitution remain unaltered.

Estrich brings up one loophole which might act in favor of a Constitutional amendment: Democratic principles.

“The problem, as my friend blogger Mickey Kaus puts it, is that most Democrats are just too principled to act in such a strategic but unprincipled way when it comes to the Constitution. And unless they do, the amendment wins.”

It’s an interesting dilemma. How might Democrats oppose an amendment which would, at least in theory, remove one more obstacle from the path which leads toward cultural equality?

Democrats who find they cannot oppose such an amendment would do well to remember another European with money and pull: George Soros.