As the issue heats up, Hawaii contradicts policy on birth certificates

The Obama File ^

[MHGinTN]

Tendered like a real liberal attorney, conflating to twist the issue into the knot you seek to support. The Senate voted on a resolution because there was question as to whether he was a natural born citizen. His citizenship was not in question (one type, he was a citizen because both parents were American citizens at his birth), he was not a naturalized citizen (a second type of citizenship), but the issue centered upon whether he would be a natural born citizen ... 1) he was not a naturalized citizen, 2) his citizenship was not in question, but a third level of citizenship as cited in the Constitution for eligibility to hold the office of the President was in question and that was addressed.

The Constitutional eligibility question is separate from the citizenship question, but in typical liberal attorney style you seek to conflate the two with a strawman. Without a new amendment to the Constitution, Congress does not have power to tell the Supreme Court what the Constitution means.

In McCain's case, the Senate appears to not agree with you that there are only two forms of citizenship. That was my point and the above illustrates that exact point. Because there appear to be three forms of citizenship, one of which is specific to just the office of Presidency, that is why a Subpreme court ruling is required to clarify this issue.

[Non-Sequitur]

The Senate voted on a resolution because there was question as to whether he was a natural born citizen.

And surprise, surprise, that question was raised by the same kind of tin-beanie types that make up most of your compatriots on the birther threads. The Senate resolution was an overreaction to a ridiculous claim made by the New Hampshire and California plaintiffs. McCain is, always has been, and will be a natural born citizen by virtue of his parent's nationality.

The Constitutional eligibility question is separate from the citizenship question, but in typical liberal attorney style you seek to conflate the two with a strawman. Without a new amendment to the Constitution, Congress does not have power to tell the Supreme Court what the Constitution means.

What part of 'non-binding resolution' don't you understand? Or is that too 'liberal lawyer' for you?

In McCain's case, the Senate appears to not agree with you that there are only two forms of citizenship.

Having read the Senate resolution I'm at a loss as to what you're talking about. The resolution mentions only natural born citizenship and no other.

That was my point and the above illustrates that exact point. Because there appear to be three forms of citizenship, one of which is specific to just the office of Presidency, that is why a Subpreme court ruling is required to clarify this issue

Hogwash.