As a preface to this writing, I’d just like to comment about how refreshing it is to be “talked to” rather than being “talked down to” or lectured by the career politician.
Aside from this differing approach, one lingering misstep from the 2008 campaign cries out for our study. America’s entire structure of government has been defined within the words of our Constitution and its amendments. So why is it that three pertinent words continue to be cast aside by all entities and players within our election proceedings?
As difficult as it may sound, can we imagine the awesomeness of creating a new but lasting government? Or to find agreement within all the differing factions? Compared with today’s venue, this alone would be a remarkable accomplishment. However, they did and it is up to us to remain faithful and loyal.
Given this, why would our Forefathers make a special note of what is a “natural born citizen,” or in its acronym form, NBC?” Obviously, since they felt it important enough for its inclusion, there must be a difference from that of being an average American citizen. So, what was this distinction which was important enough to begin Section 5 of Article II of our Constitution?
To make matters worse, and in accordance with the conciseness of their writings, this NBC identity lacked an explicit definition. And it is with this that the quandary rests.
Examination of their thoughts and intentions uncovers an understanding that the most crucial element to what would become the office of the American Presidency would be insuring that those so entrusted would possess the highest degree of loyalty. Hence, their “natural born citizen” mandate.
At the time of this Constitutional writing, what was widely read and extremely popular among our Framers was the work entitle, Law of Nations, by Emer Vattel. Within its pages, the definition of “natural born citizen” can be found. Is it now such a stretch to realize that those highly educated and voracious readers, who were our Founders, valued Vattel’s method of assuring the highest allegiance in leadership? Vattel’s exact term was included within our Nation’s law so, for those who continue to doubt or deny, why is it if not for its logical purpose?
In Vattel’s work, he defined NBC as “those born in the country of parents who are citizens.” Notice the plurals of “parents” and “citizens.”
Now, this was at a time when education began within the family unit, and in many cases remained as the sole source. Therefore, having parents who were American in heart, mind and spirit provided the best chance for instilling a proper American allegiance.
With the current unknowing of American history/Civics, various authority figures find it easy, even tempting to mislead for personal gain. The old axiom, “if one doesn’t believe in something, one will believe in anything” certainly applies. This is not meant to insult, only as a critique of today’s degree of American allegiance from a watered down version of American study.
So, given this factor of gullibility, is it any wonder that when a Presidential candidate, especially one that owns such high Constitutional acclaim as does Cruz, is it any wonder that when he says this issue of his citizen eligibility is “settled law,” the vast majority of Americans accept it? How many stop to ask, “how is that?” Especially when his particular version of “settled law” revolves around only his mother being an American citizen.
In addition, we are also informed with the headline, “Legal scholars back Cruz on citizenship.” Jane Hook set the incorrect venue when writing in the Wall Street Journal that “in a spat with Donald Trump over whether his Canadian birth disqualifies him from being president.”
Once again, the emphasis is being drawn to locale rather than the parentage. This is the exact format which produced an Obama presidency. Where was he born; Hawaii or Kenya, remember? No mention was given that his father was a British subject, thereby nullifying his candidacy.
Once again Trump correctly draws attention by questioning an overlooked and misinterpreted Constitutional specific. However, it is obvious that his staff has shifted his focus away from the incriminating two parent requirement and settled totally upon the old “location of” refrain.
Within that same WSJ piece, two former U.S. solicitors stated that “it is a ‘spurious’ argument to claim a child of a U.S. citizen isn’t eligible to serve as president simply because he or she was born outside the U.S.” And finally, it informs that, “There is no question that Senator Cruz has been a citizen from birth and is thus a ‘natural born citizen.’”
Yes, Sen. Cruz is an American citizen but when applying the Constitutional dictates of being a “natural born citizen,” he fails the test! Being “a citizen from birth” verses being a “natural born citizen” can be entirely different.
One last hitch to the Cruz get-along is that he bases being a NBC on his mother’s citizenship. Ask yourself, how and why would the Framers’s specify “natural born citizen” if only one citizen parent was required? Does the American citizen who was born of two parents become immaterial? And lastly, in Cruz’ case, all this is based upon the one parent who wasn’t even permitted to cast a vote when this mandate became a Constitutional requirement. Is his position feasible, given the impossibility of it holding water two hundred years ago?
So, it seems that Cruz’ “settled law” may not be that settled, and that despite all his Constitutional acumen, the politician in him shines forth, given the proper motive.