What is this stupidity at the New York Times regarding stories about John McCain.  First it was the affair story that had no solid backing.  Now it’s this story about McCain being born in the Panama Canal Zone bringing up questions about his Presidential eligibility.

What a stupid story.  McCain was born to someone who was serving in the military of the United States.  He certainly couldn’t do anything about that, so why should he be prevented from trying to lead his country?

So, yes, McCain should be able to run.  It shouldn’t even have been a question that was brought up, and McCain certainly seems to have enough precedent to his favor.  Four other people have had similar questions brought up, and all had rulings in their favor, or no question was brought up.

The bigger question is the ‘natural born’ clause in the Constitution.  Now, I understand the reason for having it back when it was created.  They certainly didn’t want England to try and sneak in someone or something!

Well, these days, when nobody’s about to be questioning our country’s right to exist, is it still needed?  I say, if someone has committed themselves to this country so much that they become a citizen, why should it matter?  We’re certainly not going to have someone as President who hasn’t proven themselves whether as a Congressperson or a Governor, or other political position (it just isn’t going to happen, as I’ll discuss in my Independents Week entries).

So, if they’ve committed themselves, why not let anyone who’s a citizen on this country become President?  Call me one to be against the Constitution if you wish, but I think there’s some people in this country who could make a difference.  Except they can’t, because they’re not natural-born citizens, just citizens.

What say you?  Retain the natural-born clause, or should it be removed?