alt.education

In article ,
Bob LeChevalier wrote:

> Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> >>As for you, and as for anybody else who is curious to verify the facts
> >>of we are discussing, I recommend actually reading a copy of the US
> >>Constitution. Upon actually reading it, it will become apparent that it
> >>is quite straightforward, and is not subject to interpretation.
>
> Since it is in the news today, is John McCain qualified for President
> under the "No person except a natural born Citizen" clause?
>
> How is that NOT "subject to interpretation"?
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/29/us/politics/29mccain.html?_r=1&ref=us&oref=s
> login
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23415028/
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/realclearpolitics/20080229/cm_rcp/post17
>
> lojbab

I'm pulling together data from the congressional record in regards to
your other query now.

But the idea that John McCain is not qualified to be President because
he was born on a US Naval Base in Panama, of American
parents...is...well...stupid.

There are plenty of valid reasons why John McCain should not be allowed
to be our President, this Panama thing is not one of them.

The very idea that two Americans should have a child ON a military base,
while on DUTY for America, IN the Military, and somehow this makes the
child unqualified as an American to be President is just stupid. Even
if it somehow violated the letter of the law (and I don't believe that
for a minute) then it surely violates the spirit of the law.

The purpose of the law is to prevent a foreign citizen with uncertain
allegiances from taking command of our nation. In no way is John McCain
a 'foreign citizen' nor is he an American by naturalization.
--
Gunny Freedom's Blog: http://libertyline.blogspot.com/
Gunny's Hangout: http://www.rwva.org/yabbse/index.php "Liberty's Price"
Become a Rifleman: http://appleseedinfo.org/