A growing number of constitutional law scholars are arguing that Ted Cruz’s birth in Canada makes him ineligible to become president. Their argument could prove a thorn in the side of the senator, who is a zealous originalist on most constitutional questions—with what seems like a notable exception.
The issue has moved to the center of the presidential campaign, with Cruz’s rise in the polls and Donald Trump claiming that Cruz needs to prove he’s eligible to run by getting a declaratory judgment in federal court.
There is some ambiguity in the question of eligibility. The Constitution sets down three requirements to assume the nation's highest office: one must be at least 35 years old, have been a resident of the U.S. for at least 14 years (though whether those years must be consecutive or can be cumulative is a question up for debate) and must be a "natural-born citizen" of the United States. But the founders did not explicitly define "natural-born citizen," leaving room for doubt and debate.
While Cruz has told reporters his eligibility to become president is "settled law" because his mother was an American citizen when he was born and never renounced her American citizenship while she was a Canadian resident. Many constitutional theorists agree with Cruz that it's not really up for debate.
But it’s hardly unanimous. An increasing number of high-profile constitutional law professors, including one of Cruz's own professors from Harvard Law School, have in recent days argued publicly that Cruz's birth disqualifies him.
"[I]t's all in how you read the Constitution," wrote Thomas Lee, a professor of constitutional and international law at Fordham University, in an op-ed published in the Los Angeles Times Sunday:
There are three leading theories of how to interpret the Constitution today. One is textualism: The Constitution means what its words say. The historical context of the words is important when a modern plain meaning is not self-evident.
A second theory, adopted by many liberals, relies on a "living Constitution": the Constitution means what is most consistent with fundamental constitutional values as applied to present circumstances. The third theory, championed by many leading conservatives, is originalism: The Constitution means what ordinary people would have understood it to mean at the time it was ratified, in 1788.
i agree with the liberal interpretation, just like the Old test. and the New Test. if was obviously considered a different day and time and a more relaxed less harsh fire and brimstone of old. i hate it when republicans try to compare Pres. with actions or ideal of some White guy decades before things change they like to hoist his carcass up and rail about how good he was but he was not as good as Pres.
why isn't someone bringing up what they are still insinuating about Pres.birthplace if it were ever correct seems it would be the perfect parallel or maybe not because they lost that lie but still beating it. i wrote this here almost 5 years ago and still stand by it
Friday, June 4, 2010
he's not a sheep
this rhetoric going around now is stupid, kudo's to President Obama for being and staying who he is. Why do they expect him to react and act the same way some other president or hopeful did 30 yrs. ago. the world has changed,no wonder the gridlock is larger than the advancement how can any anyone with an ounce of intelligence assume that there is some standard on how you are suppose to respond if you are to be seen as legitimate??
we have a president now that has his own feelings not yours or your fathers.that is an attempt to stereotype someone who is different than past executives in almost every way and put him in that box so they can criticize. That is exactly why it's not working with those who are more enlightened then "THE FOLKS" (O'Reily) or "THE REAL AMERICANS" AGAIN "who's zoomin' who?"
Posted by Nick Johnson at 9:17 AM
PS addendum, real Americans names are Cochise, Sitting Bull, Geronimo, etc. can any of those who oppose make claim to that????????????????????