Jacob Sullum writes at Reason.com:
During last week's Republican
presidential debate, Ted
Cruz said it's "really quite clear" he is eligible to run for
president even though he was born in Canada, because his mother was a U.S.
citizen. His rival Donald Trump insisted "there is a serious
question" as to whether Cruz qualifies as "a natural born
citizen," one of the constitutional requirements for the presidency.
Here is a sentence I never thought I'd type: Donald Trump is
right. Cruz describes a consensus that does not exist.
The Texas senator is not alone in doing that. In a Harvard
Law Review essay published
last March, Neal Katyal and Paul Clement—solicitors general under Barack Obama
and George W. Bush, respectively—say "there is no question that Senator
Cruz has been a citizen from birth and is thus a 'natural born Citizen' within
the meaning of the Constitution." They call claims to the contrary
"specious" and "spurious."
No doubt Mary Brigid McManamon, a legal historian at Delaware Law School, would object to those adjectives. In a Washington Post op-ed piece published last week, she says it's "clear and unambiguous," based on British common law during the Founding era, that Cruz is not a "natural born citizen."
As Catholic University law professor Sarah Helen Duggin and
Maryland lawyer Mary Beth Collins show in a 2005 Boston University Law
Review article,
these dueling perspectives are the latest installment of a long-running
scholarly debate about the meaning of "natural born citizen."
Contrary to Cruz, Katyal, Clement, and McManamon, Duggin and Collins view the
phrase as "opaque" and dangerously "ambiguous" (as well as
outdated, unfair, and antidemocratic), arguing that it should be excised by
amendment.
Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe, whom Trump likes to
cite, has taken both sides in this debate. In 2008 Tribe and former Solicitor
General Ted Olson coauthored a memo that
said John McCain, the GOP nominee that year, was eligible for the presidency
even though he was born in the Panama Canal Zone.
Since the Constitution does not define "natural born
citizen," Tribe and Olson wrote, to illuminate the term's meaning we must
look to the context in which it is used, legislation enacted by the First
Congress, and "the common law at the time of the Founding." They said
"these sources all confirm that the phrase 'natural born' includes both
birth abroad to parents who were citizens, and birth within a nation's
territory and allegiance."
Writing in The Boston Globe last week, by contrast,
Tribe said "the
constitutional definition of a 'natural born citizen' is completely
unsettled." He added that based on the originalist approach Cruz favors,
he "ironically wouldn't be eligible, because the legal principles that
prevailed in the 1780s and '90s required that someone actually be born on US
soil to be a 'natural born' citizen." Fordham law professor Thomas Lee
makes a similar argument in
the Los Angeles Times.
Satisfying as it may be for Cruz's opponents to see him hoist
by his own interpretive petard, this way of framing the issue is misleading,
because the debate about the meaning of "natural born citizen" is
mainly about what the original
understanding was, as opposed to whether the original understanding
should prevail. Originalists such as Georgetown law professor Randy Barnett
and University of San Diego law professor Michael Ramsey
argue that their approach favors Cruz.
Another originalist, Independence Institute senior fellow Rob
Natelson, who describes himself as an "admirer of Senator Cruz," is
not so sure. "Although Senator Cruz’s belief that he is natural born may
ultimately be vindicated," Natelson writes on
The Originalism Blog, "the case against him is very
respectable."
Case Western law professor Jonathan Adler, who initially said "there
is no question about Ted Cruz’s constitutional eligibility to be elected
president," later conceded
he "may have been too quick to suggest that this issue is completely
settled." I was similarly chastened to realize it's not safe to assume
everything Donald Trump says is a lie.
No comments:
Post a Comment