Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: RummyChick
I am afraid there is going to be some retroactive law to let him in...and I dont think that is what our Founding fathers had in mind.

That would require an amendment to the Constitution, which would be impracticable and highly unlikely. Moreover, the amendment would have to be made retroactive, if that's possible.

62 posted on 12/03/2008 11:23:52 AM PST by Aquinasfan (When you find "Sola Scriptura" in the Bible, let me know)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]


To: Aquinasfan
That would require an amendment to the Constitution, which would be impracticable and highly unlikely. Moreover, the amendment would have to be made retroactive, if that's possible.

Sadly, I disagree. The Constitution does not define "natual born". Early in this debate we had lots of competing theories about what that means. Eventually many settled on the "Born in Kenay, Mom not 19" definiton. But that comes from US Code, not the constitution. US Code can be ammended by simply revising it. The clause that people are hanging their hopes on *IS* weird.


65 posted on 12/03/2008 11:54:27 AM PST by Jack Black (ping can't be a tag line, can it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson