Replies

I suppose you're too stupid to get the connection, so I'll 'splain' it to you, obamnoid.

When it comes to stupid who better than you would know?

McCains citizenship was not in question...

Actually it was. There were lawsuits filed in California, posts on blogs, even threads here on Free Republic if memory serves. Very much like this hoopla over Obama, and using very much the same arguments and tactics. You call me stupid yet your memory if very selective.

...BUT they did consider a third form of citizen, natural born citizen...

A third form? I'll point out yet again that natural born citizen is one of only two forms of citizenship mentioned in the Constitution. If you aren't one then you're the other. You call me stupid and yet you apparently haven't read the Constitution.

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.