The Constitution sets a different standard for P & VP than for Senate or House. Why? You completely ignore Minor v Happersett and Vattell. Why? If only birth in U.S. is what was meant, then why distinguish between P, VP and Senate and House? The reason you can't answer that is because the intent was clearly to have a higher standard for the Commander in Chief of American armed forces. BHO is a poster child for why they inserted this clause. Sadly, armchair idiots love to think they're smarter than the Founders. They're not even close.

How can you write a story like this without giving the actual vote total and a link so one can see who voted yea and who voted nay? We have to keep these folks feet to the fire and the easier it is to keep up with them the better. Please do a better job next time.

The U.S. Constitution

Brent. Don't you think it's time for Republicans to simply refuse to go on these shows. There is plenty of exposure available these days through various cable and social networks. We don't need Katie and Matt and the gang beating up on our candidates. Let's make them irrelevant, which they already are with me. I haven't watched them since the middle 90's.

The nomination process has a long way to go. The steady, honest Conservative who doesn't embrace the establishment's weak kneed approach to liberals will win this time. The people are sick of career politicians who claim they will save us from career politicians. Romney tries to position himself as an outsider. That's only because he has lost so many elections. He's a used car salesman and so is Perry and the People are seeing right through them. We all know who will be standing in the end while the media both left and right continue to say he can't win. The only person who can't win next year is Barrack Hussein Obama.

http://supreme.justia.com/us/231/9/case.html SCOTUS affirms that citizens are on equal footing in all cases EXCEPT for elligibilty for President.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=88&invol=162 Either respect the Constitution or kiss your chains for if one clause is ignored they all may be. If Conservatives do not uphold the Constitution even when it hurts, who will. Can we please have the courage of our convictions for a change? If you want to be 'liberal' with the law, be a Liberal/Marxist. Don't pretend to be conservative. Honesty is always the best policy. Truth will out.

It is not unconstitutional. See above. Though the rest of what you said is still true. We have Justices that are known to vote a certain way on certain bills before it even comes before the Court. Why? Because they are deciding cases on ideology not law.

Indeed. Absolutely correct. Why is it so hard to get everyone to understand this? There is no SS 'fund'. It's a tax with a 'promise' of benefits. That is the brilliance of FDR and his aides. SS is a big lie as are all Democrat programs.

If you read the SCOTUS decision it really hinged on uniformity and whether there was coercion in regards to the waivers given to states if they implemented unemployment insurance policies. The actual portion of the Constitution justifying the act was the general Welfare clause. With the country deep in recession the Court determined that the gov't could attempt to prevent massive destitution among seniors under this clause. Also, probably the most important point, this bill was written as simply a tax, with no direct ties to benefits. The benefits are simply promises. IOW's if they wanted to they could continue to collect the tax and pay zero benefits. There is not and never was a 'fund' for retirement benefits.