buyerbeware wrote:
<quoted text>
Uphold the Constitution. Try reading it.
" I can't find your version of it."
Try the Library of Congress. We all operate under the same version despite your emotional denial.
John McCain did not run for President in 2000. The current President did. " "He ran in the primaries for President of the US. Try reading the news to get your facts straight."
Again, John McCain did not run for President in 2000. Spin all you want, you can't change that fact. John McCain attempted to gain the nomination for a private party (-R's) and failed and never made a ballot.
"Schwartznegger was born in Austria of Austrian parents and immigrated here and eventually took a citizenship test, passed and became a "naturalized" citizen ".
Fair enough.
Now, I know you hate the thought but McCain is a natural-born citizen, even though he was not born within this country's borders, since his parents were citizens at the time of his birth.
Stick with what you know. What I hate or do not hate is not it. John McCain is a naturalized citizen no matter how you wash it. His citizenship is by virtue of Congressional action (law) that's what makes him naturalized.
As a Congressional Act stated in 1790 and another reaffirmed in 1795: Congress: "And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens." The State Department says that this law is again honored under section 301(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Thank you for proving what I just told you. The State Department does not grant citizenship. The State Department does not validate citizenship for anyone but those born overseas. Congress does not elect the President, the various States do. That fact tells you everything you need to know.
The key here since you don't seem to understand it is "the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens."
What you don't seem to understand is that an act of law cannot alter the Constitution or it's requirements. That's what amendments to the Constitution do. You should have just learned this in the Heller case.
Since the Supreme Court has never had a case bought before it challenging the legality of this Act - it stands in force.
Nice backstop. Now find yourself an actual argument that is based upon the Constitution.
If that is too difficult for you to understand --tough.
Apparently you've yet to learn that the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land. How sad.