Presidential candidates differ on constitutional conundrum
Posted: September 17, 2011
8:07 pm Eastern
By Joe Kovacs
© 2011 WND
![]() Presidential candidate Rick Santorum gets swarmed by news media following the first-ever tea-party debate in Tampa, Fla., Sept. 12, 2011 (WND photo / Joe Kovacs) |
Yet once the debate was over, some were willing to address the matter.
Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum told WND, "My understanding is that issue was solved. If there's evidence to the contrary [showing Obama is not eligible], they should bring it forth."
Autographed copies of Jerome Corsi's "Where’s the Birth Certificate?" are available only from the WND Superstore
The Constitution requires a president to be a "natural-born citizen," which many legal analysts believe means being the child of two U.S. citizen parents at the time of birth.
When that was pointed out to Santorum, he responded, "I don't think that's what the Constitution requires, and he (President Obama) was born in the country, so it doesn't matter."
President Obama's father was never a U.S. citizen, but rather a subject of Britain, which had control over Kenya back in 1961.
Read more: Santorum: Obama's eligibility is 'solved' http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=344933#ixzz1YHPtjJSN







An election for President and Commander in Chief of the Military must strive to be above reproach. Our public institutions must give the public confidence that a presidential candidate has complied with the election process that is prescribed by our Constitution and laws. It is only after a presidential candidate satisfies the rules of such a process that he/she can expect members of the public, regardless of their party affiliations, to give him/her the respect that the Office of President so much deserves.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.