Posted on 11/03/2015 8:43:24 PM PST by BuckeyeTexan
BOSTON (CBS) - President Alena Mulhern has a nice ring to it. But the little girl from Kingston can't actually be elected to our nation's highest office. Alena was adopted from China. So since she wasn't a US citizen from birth, the Constitution forbids her from becoming President. She doesn't accept that and Wednesday she took her campaign for change to the State House.
"We should all have the opportunity to run for president," 10 year old Alena Mulhern says as she testifies before a State House committee.
She's not going to let anyone tell her the top job is beyond her reach just because she was born in China.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.cbslocal.com ...
My short term memory is very good and I can’t help it if you’re a distant memory even while you’re writing to me.
Your political opinion on the Constitution is clearly a liberal position - that the Constitution is a “living, breathing” document while I think it’s immutable - unless we have a Constitutional Congress to change something. It scares me to death to think we can have someone born in a foreign country as president. It scares me even more to think we can have a FEMALE foreigner as president.
You need to do some long-term thinking about this than just feeling sorry for some little liberal kiddie-poo.
Nonsense. It's predicated on an eighteenth century worldview easily sidestepped today. It accomplishes nothing appreciable, and restricts many who will come to be seen as the very embodiment of the "City on the Hill."
Are you unfamiliar with the amendment process within the document itself? Such proves it was never intended to be immutable.
So she’s adopted from a foreign country and wants to be the president some day. Well.... at least she doesn’t want to be a boy.
What rule could be stronger?
Do you bother reading through posts?
I’m not questioning it’s “strength.” I’m questioning it’s efficacy.
What are you questioning?
What rule could be more efficacious?
I don’t particularly see the need for any rule that is ineffectual.
Nevertheless, I do think a prohibition against dual citizenship is sound.
So the NBC rule is not efficacious?
I can’t see how. Even if the current administration were in violation of the NBC rule, it’s ability to duck definitive proof, intimidate any investigation of the question, and virtual expunging of any personal history prove it can be functionally circumvented given the right political connections.
By that reasoning there should be no laws at all. Since any law could be violated there is no need for any law.
Nonsense. By your reasoning, gun control laws are perfectly reasonable.
You reject the NBC rule since “Even if the current administration were in violation of the NBC rule, it’s ability to duck definitive proof, intimidate any investigation of the question, and virtual expunging of any personal history prove it can be functionally circumvented given the right political connections.” That, friend, is nonsense.
How so?
Your view is that since a law could be violated there is no need for that law.
That is a nonsensical view.
Now THAT is nonsense.
Are you in favor of enforcement of all the absurd gun control laws that do little to nothing to restrain those inclined to ignore gun laws?
I’m glad you recognize it as nonsense even though it is what you have said (see your post 132 where you reject the NBC rule)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.