Now, something tells me that nobody has been reading the US Constitution lately. When the Bush Regime negotiates with a foreign power on the deployment of troops within that foreign power’s borders, that’s called negotiating a treaty. But not according to the Bush Regime. According to them it’s a “Cooperation Agreement.” It’s a SOFA.
So we have the Executive Branch negotiating treaties and then ratifying them. But, you know, that’s what the Senate does. That’s in the Constitution.
No one is surprised, though. Time and time again the Executive Branch has ducked oversight and run ends-around on the concept of Separation of Powers.
And now we have the same thing happening in the Senate.
Today, the Senate passed a bipartisan resolution that it was OK for John McCain to run for President. That’s fine. They can do that. They can just as well pass a resolution that John McCain is 35 years old (and still eligible to run for President) if that’s what floats their boat. It still doesn’t make it so.
No, I’m afraid the Senate has overstepped their authority. This question lies with the courts. It is, by long tradition, the Judicial Branch that interprets the Constitution.
Now I’m not saying that the courts are going to find that John McCain is ineligible to be President of the United States because he was born on a military base in Panama, and not on American soil. That would be giving the courts, and in particular, the US Supreme Court, too much credit. After all, by a 6-3 decision the US Supreme Court has just ruled in favor of the question on whether states can charge a poll tax, in their requirement of a government issued photo ID, in order for a person to vote in an election.
If states can charge a poll tax, then most assuredly John McCain can be a natural born citizen.
But let’s do it correctly, OK? Let’s not follow the Bush Regime down that garden path to institutional urination on the US Constitution. After all, there are too many standing around and over it already and the drying out won’t begin until January.
2 comments:
Seriously HAL, are you insinuating that children born to American military personnel serving abroad aren't "natural born citizens"?
Making this sound like some evil right-wing conspiracy is just asinine and frankly childish.
David
Not insinuating anything, David, just reporting the facts. The fact is that our constitution forbids anyone from being president who is not a "natural born citizen". What that constitutes in this era of "immagration witch hunting" is up to interpretation.
Is an offshore military installation considered "US soil"? Does Japan think so? Does Germany? It is definitely not childish to ask these questions in this day and age.
I only ask for a level playing field and a clear instruction from the supreme court. If the ruling comes that he is a natural-born citizen, this whould be a ruling that will have far-reaching affects on the lives of many people who have been born, inadvertantly, on offshore military bases. Those who, by this metric, are natural-born American citizens.
That's not childish or asinine, David. That's just common sense.
Post a Comment