Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) has been pushing to amend the Constitution to allow persons born outside the U.S. to become President. Yesterday, the Senate held its first hearing on the issue. Many believe this is a political move to allow Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to run for President. Is that a reason to defeat the measure?

Half a dozen members of Congress and three constitutional scholars testified in support of the idea, with some telling poignant stories of young children, adopted as infants from foreign countries, being unable to dream of becoming president one day. But the image, mostly unstated, that was hanging over the hearing and the whole nascent congressional movement was the well-sculpted one of California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. He's been a U.S. citizen since 1983, fulfilling the 20-year requirement Hatch is proposing.

"This hearing would not be complete if the name of Arnold Schwarzenegger were not mentioned at least once," testified Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.), a close friend of Schwarzenegger's who introduced a companion version of Hatch's proposal last month in the House.

Amending the Constitution should not be done lightly. What is the history behind why the framers included the prohibition? Should we change it? Here's what one scholar said:

The native-born provision was inserted in the Constitution because of fears that a European aristocrat with allegiances to another country could buy his way into control of the United States, said Akhil Reed Amar, a professor of law and political science at Yale University. The requirement is outdated and unfair, he said.