catwho, pet mage of Jabober wrote:
If you go by strict wording of the Constitution, they are not eligible to be president. Although C-section is pretty common these days, it's by no means a natural process of birth. I'm sure Scalia would agree with me on this wording, since he considers the Constitution a dead document, not a living one, and therefore it means exactly what it says.
The word "natural" in this context doesn't mean what you think it does.
When someone becomes a citizen, they are "naturalized". Being a "natural born citizen" means you were naturalized at birth. It has nothing to do with whether the birth was "natural" or via C-section. Both are births. If you are born as a child of two citizens (or a whole set of other conditions), you are a "natural born citizen" of the US.
Similarly, this bit is ridiculous:
Quote:
Since McCain's policy is that life (and therefore by fundie logic US citizenship) begins at conception, he is also at odds with the Constitition, which uses the phrase "natural-born" and not "natural-concieved" in this bit.
There's nothing that says that both can't occur and be relevant. I'll also point out that the only requirements for some kind of "birth" in the constitution have to do with establishing citizenship, but *not* establishing rights. All "persons" born under the correct conditions are citizens of the US, but all "persons" have rights under US law. Interestingly, nothing in the wording specifically requires that birth occur before rights are gained. Only that birth be required before citizenship is gained.
Since "persons" can have rights without being citizens, there's nothing at all in the constitution that is inconsistent with a belief that the unborn should have rights. Feel free to check out the 5th and 14th amendments if you want more detail...
