Posted on 01/12/2016 6:34:50 AM PST by SeekAndFind
I rarely agree with liberal Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus, but she’s recently penned two pieces that actually make sense. Though Marcus is a strong supporter of Hillary Clinton, she acknowledged a couple weeks ago that Donald Trump’s threat to go after the Democrat frontrunner for enabling her sexually predatory husband was perfectly legitimate. Now, as Ted Cruz is under attack from Trump (and some on the left) for being born in Canada, she’s sensibly calling for the end of the presidential natural-born citizen test.
I heard a lot about this test from a young age. My father was born in Czechoslovakia and grew up in Germany, moving to the U.S. when he was ten. He arrived in the magical “linguistic window” so that he spoke American English like a native and still retained his native fluency in German. He served honorably as an American naval officer in World War II and after that held several federal government jobs that required a high security clearance. Yet, as he rarely tired of telling me, he could never become president.
Marcus gives a brief historical rundown of the particulars of how this rule came to be, focusing on fears in the early republic that unscrupulous foreigners would run for office and try to undo the radical American experiment in freedom and democracy. That, she claims, as have many others, is no longer really relevant in a strong and stable nation of immigrants. It leads to odd anomalies as to who can or can’t become president, based on nothing but the accident of birth.
It is also worth noting, if for no other reason than historical interest, that this rule might be dubbed the creole addition to the Constitution.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
psst....Obama’s stepfather made his money in..............OIL!!
RE: Our experience with Barack Obama teaches us the exact opposite.
Let’s say two of these natural born citizens — Bill De Blasio and Bernie Sanders were to become Presidents.
The former vacationed in Cuba for his Honeymoon when the US had sanctions against Cuba.
The latter vacationed int he Soviet Union for his honeymoon during the height of the cold war.
How does being a natural born citizen protect us from these fifth column presidents?
Agree! The Framers did everything humanly possible to prevent an Obama-esque POTUS. They could not have foreseen the day when when a NBC of America meant “Kenyan father and dual citizenship at birth.”
Sure the same old Trust me, I’m a liberal and my liberal lawyers tell us we need this change.
Nice frigging try!
ARE YOU SERIOUS??? If we don't walk back on the eligibility issue now, it's lost for good!! Besides that, Cruz takes it one step further, not even having been born in the US. And don't give me the "either was Obama" bogus argument. He "proved" his eligibility with proof that was accepted that he was born in the US. Now you want us to accept someone who wasn't born in the US, for sure?
This is pretty weird, coming from the campaign of a Constitutional scholar and great intellect such as Ted Cruz is credited with being.
Are you saying that once a rule has been broken, it shouldn't exist? First of all, the "born in the USA" rule HASN'T been broken! Secondly, there wouldn't be any rules or laws if they ceased to exist once someone broke them.
You know what Cruz's campaign is beginning to seem a lot like? GWB's campaign 16 years ago. And look how that turned out! It's time for a non-politician to clean up the mess we're in. Someone who doesn't lust for the Presidency, but instead desires to bring the US back to what it used to be. Cruz and most of the others are too young to have even shared the experiences, so much has been lost since the 1950s and 1960s. The only answer is President Trump. No one else can get the job done.
And Senator Cruz? His campaign has gotten way too money grabbing, say things in a way everyone is appeased, and his supporters online far too insulting, demeaning and nasty, to earn him respect.
RE: There’s something wrong with wanting to change it.
What would be wrong is to DISREGARD the clause since it is the fundamental law of the land.
But it would not be wrong if you follow the constitutional process for amending the clause.
But the voters would be too canny to elect a candidate named Hussein whose goal was to promote Islam and destroy the US.
Just like what we have now!!!
It doesn’t. But that doesn’t reduce its value as a constitutional protection.
It is needed more now than ever
Exactly! I have noticed this as well. They almost fawn over Cruz when the issue of his eligibility comes up. I was trying to do a google search for the quote Cruz made when first asked if he was eligible; “ under U.S. law, I’m an American citizen by birth.” “Beyond that,” he added, “I will leave the legal consequences of those facts to others to worry about.” I know he was asked on camera and gave that response - cause it floored me when I saw it. I can’t find the video though, just a few articles quoting him.
Anyway I had a bit of trouble locating that, but many pages of results came up - main media, lefty blogs, etc., headlined Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen. I thought to myself how weird that was.
All of that aside, the one thing people overlook a LOT isn’t just that a person who is a dual citizen or a naturalized citizen may have divided loyalties, but that the second country will almost certainly have LEGAL CLAIM on that person. This is a bigger deal now a days than it likely would have been back in the dawn of this country. Globalization is very real now, and it won’t be kind at all to people who are accustomed to many freedoms. We have already shown that we are willing to give up natural dignity and freedoms when we travel. We have let the government regulate our back yard gardens and little girls lemonade stands. Can’t have a Big Gulp.
I will tell you one thing, after reading the congressional records of those many attempts (since 1970) to amend the Art. 2 restriction on eligibility - it is NOT settled law. The lawyers act as though they own the narrative, yet the Constitution was written in common language. If people want an eye opener they should take an hour or two and read this: http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=pst.000058149362;view=1up;seq=5
It’s a hearing before the Immigration subcommittee in 2005, and there are things in there about dual citizenship HELPING us as Global Citizens.
It was lost for good in 2008. You just haven't realized it yet. For that matter, it was lost for good back in 1898 when the Supreme court wrecked subsequent precedent with their Wong Kim Ark decision. For that matter, it was lost back in 1868 when they passed that horribly written gibberish known as the 14th amendment.
And so on.
Not Constitutionally qualified.
He can, and is welcome to, rule our hearts though...
How can anyone who’s lived through seven nightmarish Obama years ask that question? He is the exact kind of citizen the Founders wanted to prevent worming their way into the WH, and destroying the country from within.
‘Being a natural born citizen does not necessarily protect us from divided loyalties.’
You have two pools of potential POTUS candidates. In pool One, you have a tiny percentage of people who hate the US so much they want to destroy it, while strengthening her enemies.[Fwiw, it’s doubtful even Hillary hated the US to this degree.]
In pool Two (dual citizens, foreign born) ~fifty percent of the candidates secretly prefer their birth country, and are not primarily loyal to the US.
Simple math.
wanting to change itwhich I think would include constitutional, perceived or otherwise. It's not archaic when near every nation enforces it, that sounds rather contemporary to me.
Irrelevant.
McCain wasn't born in the Canal Zone, he was born in Panama proper.
Under different circumstances that would make him an anchor baby...
No, it's time to clean our house and get back to the rule of law. You Cruz supporters have convinced me. There is NO WAY Senator Cruz should be nominated!
A person’s history tends to predict what he will do in the future.
Reagan had been a liberal democrat in his earlier years and voted for FDR four times and admired FDR.
books.google.com/books?id=U2cs7IHERBwC&pg=PA12&lpg=PA12&dq=Ron+Reagan+voted+for+FDR+four+times&source=bl&ots=iYmMp0EL0c&sig=YJl3eWma9XLzKjJPCMd9nXhUunw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiF4YDJmvfJAhUU3mMKHaptA0UQ6AEIIzAB#v=onepage&q=Ron%20Reagan%20voted%20for%20FDR%20four%20times&f=false
Your logic would have been to throw Reagan out and to the dogs because he was a democrat and voted for FDR 4 times.
Fortunately, millions people like nopardons, and I refused to stab Reagan in the back. He won the nomination and became a great president in spite of being a democrat and really liking FDR!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.