The Ironic Argument of Birth

Let me be clear. I think Ted Cruz is something of an extremist maniac and would only vote for him in a forced choice between him and someone named Trump. Cruz is at least a more intelligent and less mean-spirited maniac.

I have always assumed the interpretation of the Constitution of “natural born citizen” to be universal and mean a person who was a citizen by birth. However, apparently there are some who question that, although it seems patently unfair and manifestly ridiculous to eliminate someone who was, for example, born to an American serviceman or woman or diplomat at a foreign hospital. It would also eliminate my brother (born in Belgium), although I think there are plenty of other disqualifiers in his case. But I doubt he would vote for me, either.

In any case, if this is the best shot Trump can take at Cruz (both being denizens of the same wing and attractive to [essentially] the same constituent demographic), he should bow out now, because it’s a weak argument, even if some Constitutional scholars argue to the contrary. 

But wait. If you agree that the birth argument against Cruz is bogus, but entertained that same argument (no matter how briefly) against Obama (even if he HAD been born in Kenya, an allegation disproved so often and thoroughly it’s absurd that so many continue to believe it over fact), check your irony meter.

Also, please note that the Constitution is now, and has always been, open to interpretation, from Day 1. Please keep that in mind when you start quoting Justice Scalia about “original intent.” Part of that brilliant document’s great strength is its flexibility as a living blueprint for our government, built to change with the times.  That, above all, in my view, is the supreme testament to the foresight of the founders who supported its creation.

You can’t have an argument both ways to fit your support of a candidate or issue, although I have no doubt some will try.