I’m sure there’s some truth to the claim that this is just a political attack, but for me it does actually go much deeper. I am a firm believer in the Constitution and the rule of law and although it’s an admittedly murky issue to define, at the same time it involves the highest levels of our government. Furthermore I happen to also believe that a big part of the problems we face derive from people at the highest levels of government with divided loyalties. Enforcing this one rule passed down to us from the Founders is then a key part of everything that’s important to me in politics.
>>>I’m sure there’s some truth to the claim that this is just a political attack, but for me it does actually go much deeper.
It is entirely a political attack in that politics is what motivates both Trump, sadly, and the left. It would be disappointing but necessary if after all the flagrant law and rule-breaking from them, including from the Hillary and Bill, Planned Parenthood and the IRS, we have to concede Ted Cruz is ineligible. But I am firmly convinced he isn’t, and that we are only hurting every real cause by taking this up.
>>>I am a firm believer in the Constitution and the rule of law and although it’s an admittedly murky issue to define, at the same time it involves the highest levels of our government.
I’m a firm believer in the Constitution, too, but I don’t read it Biblically, either, as if it’s infallible. There were a couple of pastors back then who publicly questioned its lack of focus on God, and it’s been used by secular humanists as a Trojan Horse to impose secular humanism. So I will not revere it as divine revelation because it isn’t. But it is likely that a government on this earth would have a very hard time to do any better than this, and so far as it doesn’t require disobeying God, I observe the Constitution. And I also believe in the rule of law.
But again, we have to remind ourselves that the murkiness is the law, and not impose what’s not there. If those who wrote the Constitution only wanted to make black-and-white situations like Arnold Schwarzenegger’s, and go no further, then that murkiness is the law. This IS the highest office in government, yet they didn’t define NBC and we have to ask why. And we have to conclude that even then, it would have been a too complex matter for them to get into, with innumerable possible scenarios. They trusted that the campaign process would eliminate someone whose allegiances were elsewhere or doubtful in close cases. There would be no easy formula given to do so, because there wasn’t one. Even then, with a country that had been under Britain, and had immigrants coming from all over, and the country growing and changing all the time, the ultimate judgment on someone’s allegiances would have to be made by looking at that person personally. NBC was only a start.
>>>Furthermore I happen to also believe that a big part of the problems we face derive from people at the highest levels of government with divided loyalties. Enforcing this one rule passed down to us from the Founders is then a key part of everything that’s important to me in politics.
I believe in enforcing this rule, but only so far as it was meant to be enforced, so far as we can tell. I’ve been concerned at times by the talk of amending the Constitution so that this or that person who is a naturalized citizen can run. I don’t agree with that at all, and how breezily people dismiss a foreign birth, citizenship and upraising.
But I think in cases where we are taking out a microscope and looking ever more closely at it, like this one, and people come out on different sides of the matter regardless of party, then I think we’re taking things too far.
People who say Cruz isn’t eligible aren’t going by the law but their interpretation of it, and I think to prevent someone from doing something, you have to have a clearer legal reason than to allow someone to do something. And such a judgment should correspond to common sense where the matter isn’t black and white legally.
For instance, people from time to time do say that someone foreign born is a good American and would make a good President, if he could legally run. Whether that’s true or not, a common sense interpretation of the person says they’d be a patriotic candidate and President, but the black-and-white Constitution clearly says they can’t run. And we understand the reasons that the potential risks outweigh the potential benefits, which is the purpose of the B&W Constitutional provision.
But in the case of someone with at least one American parent, and American citizenship at birth so they never go a naturalization process, the case against them and for preventing foreign allegiances just isn’t there, the murkiness of the law doesn’t favor preventing them, and the campaign process favors letting the voters decide the significance of their circumstances. What outside the possibility of technical Constitutional ineligibility, in a common sense view of his life, corresponds to him having a lack of allegiance to the United States?
So you’re saying that your issue here is divided loyalties? Seems a very valid general concern.
Is there evidence of divided national loyalties with Cruz? In what way do you see having been born in *Canada* and then raised in the U.S. would impact this against the interests of the U.S.? Do you believe he was unduly influenced by Quebec as a three and four year old? Do you see other, non-Canada based divided loyalties that give you pause?
There clearly was such an issue with Obama: regardless of where he was born, there is clear evidence that he viewed himself as a foreigner.