[Non-Sequitur]

it did not need to define under all circumstances. It clearly states in the debate that because he was born of TWO us Citizens that he was eligible.

Read the language of the resolution. There's an error in it - McCain wasn't born on a military base. So does that invalidate the resolution and make him ineligible?

[Munz]

>>Read the language of the resolution. There’s an error in it - McCain wasn’t born on a military base. So does that invalidate the resolution and make him ineligible?<<

No it does not. The resolution stands even if flawed.
It was not opposed.
It CAN be opposed with a further legislation, but as it stands it is valid.

[Munz]

as a matter of fact, there is the interesting part of the legislation right here.

Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible for the Office of the President, a person must be a `natural born Citizen’ of the United States;

Whereas the term `natural born Citizen’, as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;

Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the `natural born Citizen’ clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress’s own statute defining the term `natural born Citizen’;

so they cite the first congresses own statute and affirm that the president must be a natural born citizen.

I think it strengthens the argument against obama.