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

And no, it is not 'subject to interpretation.' the text of the article
is clear. Those who say otherwise (regarding the disqualification
question) are actually twisting the plain language of the text to make
it mean something it does not.

Of course, you also have to consider WHY any ambiguity may exist: the
drafters of the Constitution never anticipated America keeping military
bases on foreign soil.

Nevertheless, the text and the motive behind the article are not
unclear. To any strict constructionist, this is not even a ghost of a
question. It simply does not apply to John McCain.
--
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/