statutory exceptions which prove the rule.
McCain had to be suject to a statutory exception in order to fit into the citizenship rule.
as for deriving only from the father, in this day and age that is laughable as we do not even allow a widows only share of inheritance, we have widow’s or widower’s share for inheritance.
again there are only two types of citizen NOT three.
As with Minor v Happersett, there are different subsets or classes of citizens: native born, natural born and naturalized.
Obama claimed on his campaign website to be native born, not natural born which Article 2 Section 1 specifically requires to be president.
See the chart to understand:
http://www.wnd.com/images/misc/naturalbornchart07292009.jpg
And what day and age was the Article II eligibility requirement written, and have they changed it anytime since?
Some would argue that the 14th amendment changed it, but Edge919 pointed out that in 1875, the Supreme court specifically said that 14th amendment citizenship was not the same thing as "natural born citizen."
If the 14th amendment didn't change the rules, neither did any subsequent amendment, and ONLY an Amendment can change the rule.
again there are only two types of citizen NOT three.
Yes, Male and Female. Other than that, there are numerous and sundry subcategories of the term "citizen." In any case, we aren't concerned with basic citizenship, we are concerned with a special kind of citizenship which is required for Article II eligibility, and that being the highest level of citizenship which knows no allegiance to any other nation.
Alexander Hamilton originally proposed using this language for what became Article II.
"No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States."
It was rejected in favor of the term of art "natural born citizen." If the meaning were the same, there would have been no point in rejecting Hamilton's language.
…in this day and age that is laughable…
Sounds like "progressive" blather, my friend…
The constitution is no respecter of the "day and age".
It was providentially drafted by men with wisdom beyond their years for such a time as this. It's a hell of a document, worth reading.
