Replies

We are both smart guys. Let’s see if we can cut to the bottom line here.

Dozens of legal arguments could be made as to which law is in effect now, which law has been in effect in the past, what current laws or possible future laws or modifications to existing laws will be in effect in the future, etc, and of course all those arguments could have become drivers on the Ted Cruz citizenship question if there was any indication that Sen. Cruz or his mother had failed to meet the requirements of any of those laws.

There are some uncontested facts here. There are two types of American citizenship. A Natural Born Citizen is a citizen at the moment of birth. If the child is not a Natural Born Citizen, he can later, by application, become a Naturalized Citizen. In this case the word “naturalized” generally means “as if natural” with the particular constitutional exception in the United States that a naturalized citizen is not qualified to run for or serve in the office of President of the United States. That’s why it was always interesting that Senator Mel Martinez could never be the one cabinet member “sitting out” the State of the Union speech in a safe bunker somewhere on Mount Weather because as a Cuban born, naturalized citizen, he was not eligible to serve as president.

Another important point about that concept of being a natural born citizen at the moment of birth is that although that foreign-born natural born citizen is a natural born citizen at the moment of birth, there are acts of omission and acts of commission that that citizen can take which will nullify his citizenship.

For all intents and purposes, the two applicable laws are the one that was in effect on the date of his birth, and the one that is in effect now. In either case, under either law, Mrs. Cruz (the senator’s mother) and Sen. Cruz have both done all the things they had to do before and after the senator’s birth to meet the statutory requirements for natural born citizenship status at his birth. Likewise, Sen. Cruz has not done, nor failed to do anything that would remove his citizenship since his birth.

That said, the question then becomes “why would Mr. Trump raise such an issue?” We all know that there were numerous people who consistently confuse “natural born citizen” as defined in the various laws we have enjoyed throughout the history of our country, and on the other side “native born citizen” which, although not generally defined by law, is generally assumed to mean a person who was born within the contiguous 50 states.

There are some exceptions to this however. Not every person born within the contiguous 50 states is a citizen, native born, nor natural born. One often forgotten example is the requirement that at least one parent be subject to US laws. For example, if a woman gave birth within the contiguous United States, at the foot of the Washington Monument if you will, but if both she and her husband enjoyed diplomatic immunity as representatives of a foreign country and were therefore not subject to US laws, that child is not a citizen.

But again, of course, that is not the situation here.

I can only think of three reasons why Mr. Trump would have tried to raise the issue of Sen. Cruz’s citizenship-related eligibility to serve as president.

1; he was either badly misinformed on the status of the law regarding the issue of being a natural born citizen when a child is born overseas to at least one US citizen.

2; he possibly, as mentioned above was confusing “natural born citizen” with “native born citizen” I really don’t blame him if he made that mistake because it is a common one. But you would think that someone running as a serious candidate for president of the United States, who undoubtably has access to an entire cadre/coven of constitutionally-qualified and experienced lawyers would have sought out and received proper clarification on the issue so we didn’t incorrectly raise it.

3; finally, and although neither of the above options are particularly attractive, this is certainly the worst of the lot. Did Mr. Trump raise the issue of Sen. Cruz’s constitutional qualifications to serve as president with a knowledgeable purpose of trying to scare voters away, knowing there was no constitutional basis for his claim. Yes, I know, we’ve all heard the phrase that “everything is fair in love, war, and politics” but if this was the operative option, it lowers my opinion of both Mr. Trump and the entire Republican debate-primaries circus we have all been exposed to.

Perhaps I long for simpler times. When Sen. Goldwater ran against Pres. Johnson, voters made decisions not on their looks, alleged marital infidelities, or anything else other than what we thought about their intended plans for the country as delineated in their clearly stated policies. When Nixon ran against Humphrey, we didn’t vote for the “good-looking guy”, the guy with sexy wife, or the guy with the greatest vocabulary of insults; we knew and cared about their differences in the policies they intend to follow. We knew Nixon would follow one set of policies, and Humphrey something quite different.

Can you imagine how it would’ve been in 1968 if the Humphrey henchmen has started a whispering campaign among evangelical Christians that they shouldn’t vote for Nixon, because as a Quaker, “he wasn’t a real Christian.”

Back to the original point; there is no doubt that Sen. Cruz is constitutionally qualified to run for and serve as the president of United States. No one has made the accusation, at least no one with an IQ larger than his shoe size, has made the accusation that both Sen. Cruz and his mother did not do all that was necessary in order for him to be a statutorily and constitutionally qualified natural born citizen. Unfortunately, Mr. Trump’s raising the issue reminds me of Mark Anthony’s speech with the repeated line; “but Brutus…. is an honorable man.”

I just wish the debates had been more about policies, practices, and the directions in which the candidates wanted to take this country rather than sounding like a third grade playground fight, during recess, behind the bike rack.

Have a good weekend.