[usmcobra]

I thought the language was very clear on the issue, it defines who can become a citizen at the time of the first congress, it defines how their children would become citizens and finally it defines what it takes to be a Natural born citizen.

Clear and without the sort of legalese we see bantered about by lawyers trying to hide what is in plain view. Remarkably I might even suggest that Obama borrowed from this act it’s very essence when writing the McCain resolution.

[Non-Sequitur]

I thought the language was very clear on the issue, it defines who can become a citizen at the time of the first congress, it defines how their children would become citizens and finally it defines what it takes to be a Natural born citizen.

With one glaring exception. It makes no reference to the citizenship of children actually born in the U.S. itself. Now I suppose you can try and make the case that the citizenship requirement of the father is implied in cases of children born in the U.S., but then that implied requirement is negated by the 14th Amendment which contains no such restriction. Or so the Supreme Court has found.

Clear and without the sort of legalese we see bantered about by lawyers trying to hide what is in plain view. Remarkably I might even suggest that Obama borrowed from this act it’s very essence when writing the McCain resolution.

Claire McCaskill wrote it, Obama just signed on for the ride. But regardless, a non-binding Senate resolution has no standing in law.