Quantcast

John McCain ineligible?

MikeD

Leader and Demogogue of the Ridemonkey Satinists
Oct 26, 2001
10,408
455
chez moi
Prof. Chin's reasoning is rooted in a definition of 'citizen' as stated in the 14th amendment. But this definition does not have an exclusive component; it never says that it's the ONLY definition of who's a citizen.

Likewise, the phrase "natural-born citizen" as used in the Constitution pre-dates the 14th amendment definition and has no solid legal definition as far as I'm aware. Chin is only arguing whether he meets the 14th amendment definition, which isn't the right discussion.
 

Changleen

Paranoid Member
Jan 9, 2004
9,910
9
Hypernormality
Prof. Chin's reasoning is rooted in a definition of 'citizen' as stated in the 14th amendment. But this definition does not have an exclusive component; it never says that it's the ONLY definition of who's a citizen.
Yeah. You just change it as and when suits.
 

MikeD

Leader and Demogogue of the Ridemonkey Satinists
Oct 26, 2001
10,408
455
chez moi
How about this choice nugget from the article?



Not that it means anything, but why even do this if there wasn't any doubt? :brow:
There's nothing wrong with heading idiots off at the pass. But much like having a bill of rights is dangerous because it might make people think those enumerated are the only rights we enjoy, or that they're granted by the gov't instead of being our natural rights, passing a resolution is dangerous because it leads to this kind of thinking.

If there's a sign saying definitively, "everyone with a red hat is a citizen," it doesn't necessarily mean those with yellow or blue hats aren't.

Besides, the 14th amendment was never intended to be an exclusive definition of citizenship. It was there to ensure freed slaves weren't excluded from citizenship, not to redefine citizenship in totality.

Nor does the 14th amendment even broach the territory of what "natural-born" means. As far as I'm aware, there's nothing defining this rather loose term in a strict legal sense.
 

X3pilot

Texans fan - LOL
Aug 13, 2007
5,861
1
SoMD
Nor does the 14th amendment even broach the territory of what "natural-born" means. As far as I'm aware, there's nothing defining this rather loose term in a strict legal sense.
Yikes, natural born? My son was born via C-section!