Constitution thoughts, part 3

Article II gives the details of what the President is allowed to do and who can qualify. In Section 1 it reads: “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.” When Mitt Romney’s father wanted to run for President this issue was brought up because he was born in Mexico. I have also heard people talk about this because John McCain was born in Panama. It seems clear to me that as long as you are a legal citizen, it is not required for you to have been born inside the United States.

Section 4 reads: “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” President Clinton was impeached for lying to a grand jury, but I’m not sure if that qualifies as a legitimate reason. Article I describe how impeachments are to proceed, they are approved by the House and tried by Senate, but required 2/3 of the votes for approval. The House voted on the perjury charge 228-206 and obstruction of justice by a 221-212 vote. Based on these vote totals it doesn't seem like it was legally performed. 50 senators voted "not guilty," and 50 voted "guilty" on the obstruction charge. The Senate acquitted on the charge of perjury with 55 votes cast as "not guilty," and 45 votes as "guilty." Andrew Johnson had a similar outcome in 1868. His case was due to removing the Secretary of War and replacing him with a new person without permission from the Senate.

A few people have suggested that President Bush be impeached for lying about the Iraq War. It seems rather obvious that he did not lie, but went on available information and there were several reasons for the invasion besides weapons. However, I don’t think it would qualify as an impeachable offense.

I wonder if Congress has ever passed a bill that violated the stated rights in the First Amendment: no establishment of religion, free exercise of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the right to assemble, and the right to petition the government for redress of grievances.

I have wondered if the Federal Courts have exceeded their intended control by ruling on moral issues. In the 10th Amendment it says that rights that are not given to the Federal government and are not banned to the states should be given either to the states or the people. I think issues like who is allowed to get married, whether abortions are allowed and laws against homosexuality and incest should be determined at the state level. Article 3 describes the responsibilities given to the judicial system and it says that Congress can create lower courts and that laws are to be reviewed by the courts, so I’m not sure if my view is supported by the Constitution.