We don’t go around defining “pizza,” because every American over the age of four knows what a pizza is. [More]Not that I want to spoil anyone's hopes, but it really is ( and has been) in all of our interests to get a correct understanding of original intent.
If you have an opinion, please cite sources.
I don't have a dog in this "Cruz Birther" fight (I've yet to see a candidate from any party that I'd vote for). But the whole "we're still arguing about what constitutes a natural citizen" thing seems silly. If they're all so hung up on law and constitution, they might want to consider that federal law already does define that, and it's never been thrown out by the courts: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401 .
ReplyDeleteLooking at the definitions, it looks simple: how long did his citizen mother reside in the US prior to Cruz' birth? If she met the threshold, he's in.
If the anti-Cruz crowd doesn't like the existing law, they can go to the Supreme Court (who ruled that a law was constitutional because what the pro-Obamacare faction said wasn't a tax to get it passed _is_ a tax, even though there's no Constitutional provision for _any_ of it).
I understand that. That's a different argument that necessitates going back to the question I posed, not about what courts have ruled, but about what was founding intent?
ReplyDeleteFor the most part, I like Cruz. Do I think he is a natural-born citizen and is eligible for President? No, but that can of worms didn't originate with Obummer either as we all know the specifics of Chester A. Arthur, the 21st POTUS. Do I have a say in the matter? No, mostly because I refuse to participate in the kabuki theater that surrounds electing POTUS, that whole lesser of two evils BS. Fortunately, CAA didn't run amock in office and further trash the Constitution proving that the heart of man can either be benevolent to the states or detrimental to it regardless of whether one is N-B Citizen or not.
ReplyDeleteWoodrow Wilson, and Theodore Roosevelt both trashed the Constitution and both were true blooded natural-born citizens.
Comments often heard include the "let's return to the constitution and the rule-of-law.", but which version would one pick? The original still allowed slavery, but if one picks the 19th where women get to vote, one also gets prohibition. What a quandary.
HinMO