Post by aztecwin on Aug 17, 2009 10:41:38 GMT -8
The law that was in force when Obama was born was rather ridiculous. His mother was born in this country to two people born in this country and that should be enough. I don't know how that interpretation of the Constitution came into being but it was nonsense and it has been changed.
If you'd like to take this thread to a higher level instead of just trolling, how's about we discuss the Constitution and what would be the best way to deal with a really vague requirement for "natural born"?
It seems to me that this is a perfect example of why the Constitution should be seen as a living document. There was no way in Hell our Founding Fathers could have foreseen the immigration waves that occurred in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Christ, it took them 3 months to travel from East Coast ports to English and French ports. And let's face it; at the time they were dealing with 13 colonies on the Eastern Seaboard and had no clue that one day millions of Latinos would be looking to come here for jobs, not to mention the massive immigrant waves that came from Eastern Europe back in the day.
Until such time as the Supremes rule on it, I don't see a result that is other than people claiming that they've got the "truth" about how that vague Constitutional codicil can be defined.
But maybe our Founding Fathers were wise enough to know that the Constitution should be a living document that changed over time and maybe they put the Supremes in there to make sure it is.
=Bob
I agree that the term "natural born" is really vague. Right now, I am more interested in why Obama keeps this issue shrouded in mystery.
