From the understanding of the (admittedly few and sometimes vague) precedents in Constitutional law, if you're going to hold that Sen. Obama was ineligible to hold the Presidency owing to his being not "natural born", owing to his father being a British subject, then you would also have to argue that Sen. Rubio is likewise ineligible to hold the Presidency due to *neither* of his parents being US Citizens when he was born.

Ok, here's a notion: When the US decamps from the brooding mess of Afghanistan, let's have every soldier, airman, and Marine give a sidearm and a pile of ammunition to an Afghan woman. Next guy who tries to abuse her gets a collection of 9mm punctionation marks on the "Leave me alone!"

The House should've been voting out Bills of Impeachment on a number of issues long since, and let the Senate explain to the electorate why they didn't do anything about THOSE either (you know, along with the budget the last umpty years and all those spending-reform measures and whathaveyou the House kept passing and sending their way).

Obviously he has the POWER to do that - he can pick up a phone and somewhere in the chain of command he'll find someone willing and able to carry out such a damnfool order. What he hasn't is the AUTHORITY. The States and The People delegated to the Federal Government the authority to do certain enumerated things. Summary executions do not appear to be among those enumerations. So while President Obama or some subsequent President can, and most likely *will* at some point direct a drone strike against a US Citizen on American soil solely "on suspicion of", he will NEVER have the RIGHT to do it. Admittedly, that's cold comfort to the poor schlub whose crisped corpse is at thebottom of that crater.

Them frogs is simmerin', and they's still turnin' the knob up on th' stove burner!

Has ANYONE in a senior position ever read these words? Has the Attorney General, or anyone among his "legal" advisors read them? It appears not.

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

'"Why did the Soviet Union disintegrate? Why did the Soviet Communist Party collapse? An important reason was that their ideals and convictions wavered," China's new leader, Xi Jinping, told a closed meeting of party elite in Guangdong province. ' Of *course* the Soviets' ideals and convictions wavered! They had nearly 7 decades of practical experience that showed how utterly unworkable EXCEPT under an appeal to brute force the socialist philosphy is on a national level. It was painful for the Soviets to learn; with a billion and a half subjects, many of them destitute and hungry and working for a pittance while the elite few blessed by the Party rake in the money, it's liable to be excruciating for the Overlords in Bejing.

And if you read the publications and correspondence of the men responsible for crafting that Amendment, "well regulated" means proficient in the use of their arms, able to maintain them in good repair, etc., and that "militia" (and this one continues to be confirmed by the Supremes) means the entire adult population capable of operating the arms they're never to be denied the right to carry. Oh, yeah, and "arms" was meant to signify (and this also has been reinforced by Supreme Court decisions) what is in common current military use. Oh yes, and "free state" can be read as "a state (political unit) that is free" and it can also be read as "people in the state, status or condition of being free" - you know, citizens rather than subjects?

Well, that's progress. At least he admits that there's a line there to cross!

So I guess in addtion to restricting shotguns we'd best start restricting sales of hacksaws, maybe only allowing sale to or possession by licensed machine shops, auto repair shops and factories that can document that they work with metal? I guess I should shut up before some congresscritter reads this and thinks, "Man, that's a good idea!" :-)