sear
VIP Member
- Banned
- #1
B. O. R. ARTICLE #2: Ratified December 15, 1791
But 2A isn't the only problem.
ARTICLE 2. SECTION 1.
A citizen is natural born if delivered vaginally, without mother having benefit of pain meds, or hot water, or perhaps even a sharp blade to sever the umbilical cord.
I suspect the intended meaning was not "natural" born, but native born.
Problem is, we as a nation are at risk of an unscrupulous candidate waiting until too late in the campaign for his opponent to respond, and then invalidating his opponent by providing evidence his opponent was born by other than 100% natural means, meaning perhaps an artificial light was present, etc.
Does it really make sense to await the crisis, and only after that, address this? Or does it make more sense to eliminate the problem risk BEFORE it creates a national crisis?
I appreciate what may have been the intended sentiment here. But syntactically I'd call these two disjointed phrases.A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
But 2A isn't the only problem.
ARTICLE 2. SECTION 1.
The term at issue: "a natural born Citizen"4 No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
A citizen is natural born if delivered vaginally, without mother having benefit of pain meds, or hot water, or perhaps even a sharp blade to sever the umbilical cord.
I suspect the intended meaning was not "natural" born, but native born.
Problem is, we as a nation are at risk of an unscrupulous candidate waiting until too late in the campaign for his opponent to respond, and then invalidating his opponent by providing evidence his opponent was born by other than 100% natural means, meaning perhaps an artificial light was present, etc.
Does it really make sense to await the crisis, and only after that, address this? Or does it make more sense to eliminate the problem risk BEFORE it creates a national crisis?