Posted on 08/28/2013 8:45:24 AM PDT by Nero Germanicus
From beginning to end, the debate over Senator Ted Cruz and his birth certificate has been silly. Like the "birtherism" debate surrounding Barack Obama, it shows that many Americans think our Constitution is a Harry Potter book of spells ("Mandamus! Habeas Corpus! Nullus indviduus mandatus!"). The "natural born" citizen clause in particular appeals to the mythological imagination.
The clause is found in Article II § 1 cl. 5, which contains three and only three requirements for a potential president: He or she must be 35 years old, must have lived in the U.S. for 14 years, and must be "a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution."
What was the reason behind this third requirement? Many people are convinced that the "purpose" of the Clause was to bar Alexander Hamilton (born in Nevis in the Caribbean) from the presidency. But the provision above says in so many words that anyone who is a citizen "at the time of the adoption of this Constitution" can be president. Hamilton had become a citizen of New York by act of the legislature in 1782. He didn't become president largely on account of the whole being-shot-to-death-by-Burr thing.
In fact, in 1787, no one over 11 -- not George Washington, not John Adams, not Thomas Jefferson -- was a "natural born citizen" of something called "the United States of America." The first "natural born citizen" to enter the White House, by my count, was Martin Van Buren in 1836 -- who was born in 1782, five years before Philadelphia.
I don't think that the Framers were even thinking about potential presidents born to American parents abroad. Their concern was naturalized citizens, and it was a lot more immediate and urgent.
(Excerpt) Read more at theatlantic.com ...
Obviously, Ted Cruz is *not* a “natural born citizen” of the United States.
I’m not arguing the constitutionality of the issue, I am arguing the SPIRIT of the issue.
Which is to say, I am for REPEALING the natural-born citizen clause of the constitution. It is obsolete and does not guarantee love and devotion to country.
Yup. Sad but true.
“Funny how some versions group words differently . . .”
So are you reading the King James Version or the New International Version of the Constitution?
/s
You’re crazy.
Any ‘conservative’ not on his knees thanking God for Cruz is being paid, IMO.
Since the original draft allowed naturalized citizens to become President, and since the change was adopted without debate, it is hard to know exactly what the Founders were thinking. I suspect the truth is they were tired and were not particularly concerned, so they didn’t mind adopting a fairly well-known legal phrase that would prevent naturalized citizens (except for the Grandfather clause) from becoming President.
There wasn’t a loyalty clause in the Constitution. The People were supposed to ensure the person elected was a loyal US citizen - something voters don’t seem to care about any more, since no sane person would have suggested Obama thought well of the USA in 2008...
No but they would have asked to see a real birth certificate
“These people are flat out nuts. I think they should form a chapter of “Conservatives to take out Ted Cruz” and get a grant from Soros......”
Nope. I’m going to start a “Canadians for Cruz!” committee.
I would like to see Cruz as senate majority leader for a couple of terms.
Spoken like a Leftist-Theorist. Understanding the intent of the text of law is an essential task in upholding and enforcing that law. What people like this author want is to just go along with the author's interpretation of what and why the "natural born citizen" requirement is in the Constitution. But we're not to be ruled by the ever-changing whims of the Left (or Right for that matter). Original intent and understanding of the text is a basic and very important judicial step in correctly construing an ambiguous clause in the Constitution. It doesn't guarantee perfection but it does support the rule of law - a much happier state of society than the rule of man and his ever-changing whims in which we find ourselves today.
Yes. They would indeed have cared, otherwise they would not have taken the time to include specific clauses regarding eligibility.
Nearly every single person posting comments to this article is a liberal, so that says something about who actually reads The Atlantic. It’s trash.
However, I do think you should get that Soros grant. Congrats on your siding with the democrat/media complex. You do them proud.
I don’t think so. I’ve read two biographies, and there is very little admirable about him.
He was highly competent, but at least equally amoral. Ran as T. Jefferson’s running mate, and then tried to stab him in back in the Electoral College. Perfectly constitutional, but dishonorable. The only reason he failed is that Hamilton, who was Jefferson’s bitterest enemy, lobbied with Federalist electors not to give into Burr’s blandishments.
Nobody would look askance at him today, but he was shocking at the time.
A natural born citizen has been construed to mean born to at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen regardless of what soil he was on at birth. Here, it is alleged Cruz's mother, Eleanor, is a U.S. citizen by birth. This could very well mean Cruz is a natural born citizen. (Same could be true of Obama if his mother was in fact a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth. Why he evaded (and continues to evade) the issue is another story.)
He was the Bill Clinton of the late 18th and early 19th centuries, a man of infinitely flexible principles.
No. Because if Ted Cruz was alive, and in the country back then, he would have been a British subject like Pres. Washington.
Ok, disregard this post...
5.56mm
For the record, I approve of politicians doing this to each other.
Put me on that record too.
5.56mm
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.