Gee, now isn't that a clever way of amending a Constitution?
Gotta hand it to you, n00b; stick around here and you might really learn something. The grist you threw out there (in error), and much more on this topic has been rehashed on more than a score of occasions.
HF
As I said, I was repeating the gist of what constitutional scholars had written during the last campaign, in reply to charges that McCain and Sen. Chris Dodd were not eligible for the presidency.
What, are you saying the Constitution says the president must be born with the United States, and not a “natural born” citizen?
The former is very precise. In Federalist Papers, the writers said they purposely used the latter as a vague term that Congress would later define.
Again, this is what all these scholars were writing when the questions were about McCain and Dodd.
You’re saying the Constitution doesn’t say “natural born” citizen? You’re saying Congress did not pass various laws decades ago to define that?
If the scholars were in error, in what precise ways. Again, I make no pretense of being a constitutional scholar. I just followed these opinion pieces with interest as a citizen born in U.S. who had children born abroad.
The scholars gave the same interpretation as did U.S. Embassy personnel giving me U.S. birth certificates, saying the children were eligible for the presidency.
I realize I am late to this argument, but pls enlighten me on specifics. Thanks.