I read much of The Volokh Conspiracy because I find their posts mostly interesting, even to a layman. There are times when their discussions of the law and courts and appeals and dicta and so on and so forth gets a bit tedious to me, but I understand that the law can be complicated (mostly because the legislators who draft laws unnecessarily make them complicated, IMHO) and so when that happens, I acknowledge it and move on.

There are times, though, when it seems to me that lawyers take the simple and make it complicated. I'm of the opinion, for example, that if there's a simple interpretation of a phrase or article in the US Constitution, that it should be favored over a more complicated, "legalistic" interpretation. So when The Head Conspirator links to a lengthy Note from The Yale Law Journal (PDF document), I just had to shake my head in despair. I really wish you guys would not try to over-complicate things.

There's a lot of hand-wringing, "it's never been defined," "this hasn't been tested in court" lawyerese in that Yale Note which makes me just shake my head. Why does our Constitution have to be complicated? Sure, I'm undoubtedly naïve on this, but this whole thing seems to me to be pretty simple:

• The Constitution says only "natural born Citizen" may be elected President
• The plainest interpretation of "natural born Citizen," it seems to me, is someone who was a Citizen at the instant of their birth
• Since no further definition is provided in the Constitution, it then falls to Congress to say what defines a "Citizen." If that's what someone is when they're born, then they're a "natural born Citizen."

Why do they make this so complicated?

The New York Times has once again stirred the pot by speculating that perhaps Senator John McCain is not a "natural born citizen," a requirement to become President of the United States, because he was born (of American citizens) in the Panama Canal Zone.

Poppycock. Not everyone agrees with my insightful analysis, though:

In a paper written 20 years ago for the Yale Law Journal on the natural-born enigma, Jill Pryor, now a lawyer in Atlanta, said that any legal challenge to a presidential candidate born outside national boundaries would be "unpredictable and unsatisfactory."

"If I were on the Supreme Court, I would decide for John McCain," Ms. Pryor said in a recent interview. "But it is certainly not a frivolous issue."

I think this is indicative of where lawyers separate themselves from society because they make things more complicated than they need to be (of course, they make (lots of) money because what they do is so complicated).

But to me, a simple layman who has a passing understanding of the English language, the interpretation is simple: if you were a US Citizen at the moment of your birth, either through your presence within the United States or by dint of having at least one American parent, you are a "natural born citizen." If you had to petition to become a citizen, you are a "naturalized citizen." To my mind, the universe of citizens is broken in to two parts: natural born and naturalized.

I'm sure it's more complicated than that. But it shouldn't be.

I'm sure this question must have been asked somewhere by now. Shoot, I probably read it myself and forgot that I read it. But if McCain has effectively won the Republican nomination, and he doesn't (yet?) have the support of conservatives, what does this say about the role of conservatism in the Republican Party?

First off, where were the conservative candidates for President? I maintain that Huckabee and Romney have been no more conservative than McCain. In fact, I consider Romney to be even less conservative, along the lines of Giuliani. I consider Thompson to be conservative, and would have like to see him as the Republican nominee, but he never caught fire among Republicans, and his leisurely approach to campaigning isn't entirely at fault here. Ron Paul is running a clearly Libertarian campaign.

So, how influential are conservatives within the Republican Party? To me, it's starting to look like the answer to that question is "Not very."

Bill Dyer has, as usual, a well-thought-out and insightful post up, this time concerning Republicans, conservatives and their relationship with John McCain. Bill has articulated exactly how I feel about the upcoming Presidential election, but haven't been able to put it into words.

Here's my bottom line for those of you who say you can never vote for McCain for President: if you think there's no difference between McCain and Clinton/Obama in our war against Islamic extremists, you're dead wrong. If you think the US will be better off with Obillary as President than with McCain, you're dead wrong.

And, quite frankly, those of you who express the sentiment along the lines of "I'd rather get stabbed in the front by a Democrat than in the back by a Republican" are just being foolish. Sorry if that's a little harsh, but as your friend, I have to tell you the truth. :)

Oh yeah, one more thing: where did the idea that Romney is conservative come from? In the context of Massachusetts, yeah, he's conservative. But compared to any of the current or former Presidential candidates this cycle, the only man he's to the right of is Rudy Giuliani. Vote for Romney if you want, but don't do it because he's a conservative, 'cause he ain't.

If you vote for Mike Huckabee for President, either in the primary or the general election in November, because he was a Christian preacher, you're as big a fool as someone who votes for Barack Obama because he's black, or Hillary Clinton because she's a woman.

Of all the reasons I can think of to vote for someone, their race, sex or job they held in the past (that has nothing to do with the position in contention) is nothing but a non sequitur. It's like saying, "I'm a Miami Dolphins fan because they've got a cute uniform," except with serious and meaningful consequences.

That is all.

Seen at Cosmic's, I took the What Breed of Conservative Are You? quiz. It turns out that I'm a

My Conservative Identity:

You are an Anti-government Gunslinger, also known as a libertarian conservative. You believe in smaller government, states’ rights, gun rights, and that, as Reagan once said, “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’”

Take the quiz at www.FightLiberals.com

Seems accurate to me.