|
02-04-2012, 07:39 PM
|
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by ilovetv
This is an interesting commentary and senate transcript cited in a reader review of the article linked by skyguy79:
"I hear so many people say that “the term natural Born citizen is not defined in the constitution, so we can define it how we wish”, or “that is what it meant then, but not now”.
The fact is that the term means the same now as it did then, and is every bit as precient as it was in 1788. There has been no Amendment to change it. There are volumes written about it’s meaning if one wants to extend a little intellectual effort.
The term was even discussed recently by the senators during the writing of Resolution 511:
EXCERPT OF SECRETARY CHERTOFF TESTIMONY FROM APRIL 2, 2008: (Resolution 511)
***
Chairman Leahy: We will come back to that. I would mention one other thing, if I might, Senator Specter. Let me just ask this: I believe and we have had some question in this Committee to have a special law passed declaring that Senator McCain, who was born in the Panama Canal, that he meets the constitutional requirement to be President. I fully believe he does. I have never had any question in my mind that he meets our constitutional requirement.
You are a former Federal judge. You are the head of the agency that executes Federal immigration law. Do you have any doubt in your mind, I mean, I have none in mine. Do you have any doubt in your mind that he is constitutionally eligible to become President?
Secretary Chertoff: My assumption and my understanding is that if you are born of American parents, you are naturally a natural-born American citizen.
Chairman Leahy: That is mine, too. Thank you.
They all heard it, talked about it and debated it. If Leahy thinks that a NBC is the product of Citizen parents, how could he support Obama? How could ANY OF THEM. They are all in violation of Article 6......"
|
|