Replies

The question is, did we chose principles of Freedom and Republicanism written in a foreign language, or did we chose familiar principles of Monarchical Servitude written in our own language?

The way you have framed the question - why, you're just bent way over backward trying to be fair about this, aren't you? ;-)

I pick . . . DOOR NUMBER 3!

If the text of the Constitution expressly limited the meaning of natural born citizen to persons born on our soil to citizen parents, then I would repudiate here and now any Ted Cruz presidential candidacy. But, I have an unshakable faith that Jacob Shallus exercised the utmost care in preparing my instructions precisely as the Lord directed.

To me and (I firmly believe) to most other ordinary people living now or living in the 18th century, the most natural construction to be given to the term "natural born citizen" is that it is the equivalent of citizen at birth. And, the Framers, either intentionally or inadvertently, said nothing in the Constitution to forbid that very foreseeable and very natural construction.

So I am happy to report that I will join other ordinary citizens like Ted Cruz (Havard Law) and Ann Coulter (Michigan Law) in concluding that the Constitution does not forbid me from supporting Ted Cruz in 2016!

The way you have framed the question - why, you're just bent way over backward trying to be fair about this, aren't you? ;-)

The Principles of English Subjectude are incompatible with the creation and existence of an Independent American state. The English version of "natural law" holds that allegiance to the Crown is everlasting.

Yes, i'd say that's being pretty fair to the Principles upon which British law is based.

To me and (I firmly believe) to most other ordinary people living now or living in the 18th century, the most natural construction to be given to the term "natural born citizen" is that it is the equivalent of citizen at birth.

I think I have suddenly realized what is the salient aspect of our difference of opinion. It boils down to Flexibility versus Rigidity.

I, and others like myself, believe the meanings expressed in our founding document are Cast-Iron Rigid. We believe that they cannot be changed by a simple act of congress, nor can they be changed by a declaration of a Judge. They can only be changed by resort to the Amendment Process to include ratification by the states, because a nation needs a rigid foundation upon which to base it's laws.

The contrary position is that our constitution is a "living" document, and it's words must be interpreted in light of the ever changing nature of society. As a consequence, Congress can change the definition of "natural born citizen" at it's whim, and courts can interpret it to mean that any sort of citizen is exactly like the explicit class of citizenship the founders desired to avoid foreign influence in the Executive.

So there it is. We the "Originalists" vs the "Living Constitutionalists."

I will point out though, that the "Living Constitution" position is the Liberal position.

Funny you should mention Ann Coulter. She doesn't seem to agree with the idea that people should get citizenship from just being born in our country.