Replies

Starting with a side point:

"It is clear to anyone with an IQ above 60 that Mr. Obama was not born in Hawaii..."

So maybe I don't have an IQ above 60, but for what it's worth I think there are a lot of birth certificate doubters and eligibility doubters who, like me, are guessing something is definitely significantly awry with with Obama's identifying documents and/or birth narrative but who, again like me, don't feel convinced he was born in Kenya.

On to the bigger issue:

"Again moot point."

This I think is a fair position, and I think you have justified it decently (not that my conclusion matters given my astonishingly low IQ). I had gathered that your interest in the debate was about how best to interpret the meaning of the constitution from a strict constructionist perspective. It was on that point that I was attempting debate, but on this point of mootness I must admit, to me it seems you are quite right.

Regardless of what historical evidence does or doesn't tell us about the Framers' intentions, it would appear the sitting supreme court has weighed in with its conclusion implicitly through inaction and silence regarding Obama's disposition. The idealist in me is hesitant to see Republicans as pushing still further the definition of natural born citizen that is in my view less attested, so I have been reluctant to join the Ted Cruz club, but at some point I may.

My kids think me hypocritical for suggesting I could support Cruz when for so long I have argued that even if Obama is telling the truth about his birth circumstances he is still probably not what the founders meant by natural born citizen. I explain myself by asking them to consider an umpire behind the plate who calls "ball high" for pitches thrown between the waistline and the letters. If the rulebook says the strike zone goes from the knees all the way up to the letters I might argue with him the first time he grants a walk to an opposing batter on a "ball high" that was well below the letters. Nevertheless if he should remain stonefaced and consistent, I would certainly instruct my batters to not swing at tough pitches that are above their waists so that the opposing pitchers are burdened to stay within the same small strike zone imposed upon my pitchers.

The point of course is that the Nine Black Riders seated in our highest court are analogous to the umpire in that they are for all practical purposes the duly vested authorities whether I like it or not. So if the Dems are going to leverage a wider definition of natural born and bear no negative consequences, it only seems reasonable the the Republicans should be afforded the same latitude. When do two wrongs make a right? When the Supreme Court says (explicitly or tacitly) that neither of the wrongs were wrong at all.

If I could have my wish it would be instead that SCOTUS finally show some courageous responsibility and take a case regarding Obama's eligibility in which they would articulate once and for all how it is those 3 words in Article II must be interpreted, but it looks like that's just not going to happen.

So yes, I'll concede. My argument about the Framers' intentions is apparently moot, thanks to the silent Supremes. All the best to Ted Cruz and his supporters. For now I'm content to stick with the outsider who grew up in the Detroit ghetto, but in Senator Cruz there is definitely much to be admired.

There are legitimate and constitutional reasons why both Barack Obama has been and Ted Cruz most likely will be deemed by the courts and by Congress (which has the power to decertify electors) as eligible. It does not have to be a “two wrongs make a right” situation.

In 1874 the Supreme Court ruled in Minor v Happersett that: “The Constitution does not say, in words, who shall be natural born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to determine that.”

“Elsewhere” turned out to be the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause and the 1898 Supreme Court decision in U.S. v Wong Kim Ark. The Supreme Court ruled in that instance that: “[An alien parent’s] allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Coke, 6a, ’strong enough to make a natural subject, for, if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject’”
“Subject’ and ‘citizen’ are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives; and though the term ‘citizen’ seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, ’subjects,’ for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.’
Every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.”
Since 1898 we have had a definitive Supreme Court ruling stating that a 14th Amendment Citizen of the United States At Birth is also an Article II, Section 1 natural born citizen.
The current Supreme Court does not have four Justices who take issue with that precedent. Four Justices must concur for an appeal to be heard by the full Court.
Certainly many Americans disagree with the constitutional interpretation mentioned above, but to date they have not been able to find originalist-textualist constitutional attorneys of note and reputation to take up the cause. And yes, the reputations of the attorneys submitting briefs and arguing appeals before the Supreme Court matter in whether an appeal is granted a hearing or not.