From: Brett Paatsch (bpaatsch@bigpond.net.au)
Date: Thu Aug 07 2003 - 03:22:27 MDT
I wrote:
> The Constitution of the United States of America.
> http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html
>
> Under Article II [The Presidency]
> Section 1 [Election, Installation, Removal]
>
> "No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the
> United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution,
> shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any
> person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained
> to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a
> resident within the United States."
>
> So on my reading, (and contrary to what I thought I knew),
> if Arnie is a US citizen and has been a resident for 14 years
> he is not precluded.
On a *second* reading it depends where the emphasis is on
the word "or".
If Arnie is not a natural born citizen ..... of the United States.
And was not (at the time of the adoption of this (original
Constitution) in the 18th century a citizen.
He would in fact be precluded.
"Ors" can be a damn nuisance in legal documents. Most
statutes can be read with the guidance of an Acts
interpretation Act. But the constitution, where it is
ambiguous would need to have any ambiguity resolved
ultimately by the Supreme Court of the United States.
I think the answer is Arnie cannot be President, (I reckon
this is what a constitution lawyer would argue to be the
likely ruling) and yet I still think were Arnie sufficiently
determined to he might make a successful Supreme Court
challenge, on the grounds that the wording is ambiguous and
the alternate reading of the ambiguity (intended or not) is in
accordance with the broader spirit of the constitution if not
the mere isolated detail as intended by the founding fathers.
Real theatrical, philosophical stuff potentially.
Brett
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Aug 07 2003 - 03:30:10 MDT