Constitutional Safeguards on the White House?

Apparently, the belated campaign issue of being a “natural born citizen” just won’t fade away, and this is as it should be, given the last seven years.  Interestingly, aside from all this attention over Cruz’s birth, isn’t it a bit odd when fellow Senator [score]Marco Rubio[/score] shies away from the discussion.

Yes, under the Constitution, both [score]Ted Cruz[/score] and Rubio are not qualified to hold our Presidency.  And while Rubio’s silence reflects an additional character flaw, one of the two key elements to which our Forefathers deemed so essential continues to be overlooked; that being parentage.

Both Senators were born to citizen mothers, but their fathers were not.  What needs to be examined are the modern day excuses which water down or attempt to revise the original intent of the Constitution.

Some theories suggest that the early Presidents weren’t qualified, given that they were born overseas or prior to the Founding.  All queries dealing with Presidents from our Founding Era should be settled when further reading Art II, Sec 5 of the Constitution; “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THIS CONSTITUTION, shall be eligible to the office of the President…”

Trending: Obama Forgot He is No Longer President, Shows Up at G20 Summit

So, citing birth disqualifications before our Independence is nonsensical since our future citizens were still considered British “subjects.”  Natural born citizenship was automatic when our freedom was gained.  And for most of the Founders, there was no higher proof of allegiance than their service in battle.

Also recall that during the 1960 Presidential campaigns, a question of allegiance arose surrounding JFK’s campaign.  This was in connection with his Catholicism and whether this might produce a duel allegiance between the Pope and America.  This concern was hotly debated, and while it had nothing to do with parentage or place of birth, it directly connects to the Founder’s intent to assure the upmost loyalty in the Presidency.

rubio and cruzAlso, it should be noted that back in 1960, many of the older voters were born in the 1880’s and 1890’s, which in hindsight, may have revealed a closer interest tie, time wise, for what the Constitution meant and provided.

Further, this is not meant to question Cruz or Rubio’s loyalty.  It is simply the law; the requirements of office set forth in our Constitution by those who fought and sacrificed for our independence.  If it now becomes too clumsy or this clause presents some sort of stumbling bock to preferred interests, then those parties need to organize a call for an Amendment.  This is the only proper and legal course.

American voters have been inundated with and given Cruz applause for his Constitutional background and knowledge.   While this is obvious and at times reassuring, what now causes Cruz to state that his birth qualifies his candidacy?  With all his Constitutional learning and Supreme Court experience, how is it that he can justify, as “settled law,” his birth to only one citizen parent?  How can there be this contradiction, given his legal acumen?  Could his motives be winning out over his knowing.

Yes, his mother was an American citizen, but if this is the criteria for being a “natural born citizen, why then did our Forefathers include such a preclusive clause which designates a citizen from a natural born citizen?

Obviously, citizenship is granted to those born of a citizen parent in the United States, but this “natural born’ designation is intended for the office it’s assigned to uphold.  So doesn’t it follow, that given their high regard for Presidential loyalty, they naturally mandated both parents to be American citizens while also requiring the birth to be on American soil?  While this term is not defined in the Constitution, it most likely taken to be a common sense understanding at the time.

Personally, I like Cruz with his pro-Constitutional Senate record, and as a Florida resident, I voted for Rubio.  However, if we continue to weave the law to fit the occasion, law ceases to be effective or meaningful.  Ironically, the results from not adhering to the strictest Presidential standards just embarked upon his last year in office.

In closing, what separates America from the rest of the world is her Constitutional form of governing, along with her citizen’s God given rights.  There is a process for improving what was, but not changing it just for the sake of change.  No one individual is worthy of the price for ignoring or temporarily revising a clause here or there.  Sadly, that’s now been proven!

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!

Send this to a friend