<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 3/23/2015 2:27 PM, Tom Hansen wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:2F2206A0-7B57-4BA3-83F1-B5DA504EB413@moscow.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<div><span></span></div>
<div>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;
charset=windows-1252">
<div>Gary Crabtree suggests . . .</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>"<span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">BHO's
mom was a US citizen so he is too."</span></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The citizenship of BHO's mother had nothing to do with
BHO's citizenship. BHO was born . . . in 1964 . . . in Hawaii
(five years after Hawaii and Alaska attained statehood). </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The Constitution REQUIRES that presidents be at least 35
years of age and "naturally born" in the United States.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><span style="background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">"No
Person except a <b><u>natural born Citizen</u></b>, 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."</span></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Nope. No mention of mommies or daddies.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Since we currently lack a SCotUS-approved definition of the phrase
"natural born citizen," we'll just have to consider the matter
before adjudication, which is not to say prejudicially. After being
surprised at the Court's ruling in the Citizens' United case, I am
willing to give the Court credit for the ability to foist a much
wider range of judicial abominations upon us. For example, natural
born might be interpreted to exclude caesarian births, even though
common sense might suggest that is an unreasonable and unnecessary
restriction on possible presidential candidacy. But it is a view
that might be used to make mischief, and so ought to be included in
any formulary of foul fenestrations utilizable to allow even more
evil into political discourse. However, since we have not (yet)
heard from the C-sectioners, we may allow that one to rest.<br>
<br>
On the other hand, it may well be that the American electorate is
approaching not merely a paucity, but an outright extinction of
eligible naturally born citizens eligible to run for the
presidency. If the SCotUS were to define naturally born citizen as
one whose mother did not consume any foods with artificial
preservatives, unnatural additives, or other
artificially-manufactured substances while she was pregnant and
carrying the potential president to term, the generally-available
American diet might well so reduce the number of eligible persons
that the rolls of potential candidates might be reduced to such low
levels that . . . what? . . . that the powers that be might have to
grow presidential candidates in special breed-and-feed lots using
actual natural foods to ensure a sufficient quantity of eligible
potentials to allow an acceptable choice of candidate to be
harvested from the farm? Aside from the possibility that such a
program would actually widen the breadth of the genealogical tree
from which presidential candidates might be chosen, we might examine
with some concern not only the nativity of candidate's origins but
the naturality of their prenatal and postnatal diets on their
presidential timbre. Pork rinds, but no broccoli? Obviously, we
can do better than that.<br>
<br>
<br>
Ken<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>