The more of a genuine ‘originalist’ someone (like Cruz) is, the harder it becomes to resolve that ‘serious question’ in Cruz’s favor. The more of a ‘living constitutionalist’ someone (like me) is, the easier it becomes to conclude that ‘natural born citizen’ has gradually acquired the broader meaning on which Cruz necessarily relies. [Source]So how would the Constitution's framers have thought of Cruz's situation? According to the source cited above, the founding fathers generally feared widespread “intrigue” by foreigners. Democracy was a new thing for everyone, and they were afraid foreign governments or their agents would dominate the new government. It's quite possible they'd be suspicious of someone born outside national borders, believing them to be subject to foreign influence. This would have been especially true for Canada, which was controlled by Great Britain. I'd prefer that this line of discussion disappear entirely from the scene, but sadly this will not be the case. From what I can tell, these days not many people seem all that interesting in troublesome things like facts or truth -- it seems bombastic nonsense and celebrity appeal are the only qualities necessary to be popular. It's all quite frustrating, but while it lasts, I'm interested in seeing how Cruz deals with it.
Friday, January 15, 2016
"Natural Born Citizen"
Ted Cruz has a funny problem for a Republican -- he wasn't born in the United States. Thus, after years spent dealing with President Obama's "birther" issue, it's possible our next president could end up dealing with the same idiocy all over again.
As the father of a child with a consular Certificate of a Birth Abroad, I find the level of ignorance on this subject completely appalling. The fact is, it doesn't matter if you're born in Antarctica -- if one of your parents was a U.S. citizen [who has lived in the U.S. (interpreted broadly) for at least five years] then you get "natural born" citizenship. In other words, you don't have to naturalize in order to be considered a citizen.
Adding to the irony is Cruz's "originalist" way of interpreting the Constitution. Originalists look to the original intentions of the Founding Fathers, whereas "living constitutionalists" try to apply terminiology to current situations. In this, Cruz is at a disadvantage, as Harvard law professor Laurance Tribe explains:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment