Legal analysts are debating whether Republican presidential hopeful John McCain's Panama Canal Zone birth meets the Constitutionally mandated standard of a "natural born Citizen," required for one to be President. The Supreme Court has never ruled on this issue, and some law professors argue in favor, some are concerned there is no precedent, while others (according to the AP) state that it is "not a slam-dunk situation.
Well I think it is. The Constitution never says one must be born within the Continental United States, only that he must be of a natural birth. Interesting. Did the Founding Fathers anticipate clones in the future, or medically induced pregnancy? Did they refer to births other than C-sections? Of course not. They simply meant a "Citizen" who became one naturally via birth as opposed to immigrating to this country and applying for and receiving citizenship.
Sometimes the legal wonks make things far too difficult, but if they want to quibble about exact wording of the Constitution with respect to Presidential qualifications the word "he" is used exclusively in the document. That technicality may not bode well for Senator Hillary Clinton.
Friday, February 29, 2008
The "Education Candidate?"
In yesterday's USA Today, Wendy Puriefoy (CEO of the Public Education Network) writes of the "need for (Presidential) candidates to tell us how they plan to improve our nation's public schools."
Ms. Puriefoy must not understand that the Commander-in-Chief is not the superintendent of schools in chief. Her questions about reducing class size and making schools safer are great questions for our states' governors, but irrelevent to the office of President.
It is embarrassing the number of people in positions of influence who do not understand that our nation's public schools are actually a collection of our states' public schools. Yes, the federal government provides some education funding to the states, and thus has a horse in the race, but it is our individual state's Constititutions that provide for public education, not that of the United States.
If Puriefoy and others believe this is the time to federalize education, make all teachers federal employees, remove education budgets from the states and pick them up with federal tax dollars, then that is the case she should make, not waste time with questions not relevent to the Presidency.
Ms. Puriefoy must not understand that the Commander-in-Chief is not the superintendent of schools in chief. Her questions about reducing class size and making schools safer are great questions for our states' governors, but irrelevent to the office of President.
It is embarrassing the number of people in positions of influence who do not understand that our nation's public schools are actually a collection of our states' public schools. Yes, the federal government provides some education funding to the states, and thus has a horse in the race, but it is our individual state's Constititutions that provide for public education, not that of the United States.
If Puriefoy and others believe this is the time to federalize education, make all teachers federal employees, remove education budgets from the states and pick them up with federal tax dollars, then that is the case she should make, not waste time with questions not relevent to the Presidency.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
