That pesky Article II: Today's editorial from the Waco-Tribune Herald..... Just days before v****g begins in pivotal Republican p**********l primary e******ns and caucuses, U.S.

slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas

Today's editorial from the Waco-Tribune Herald.....

Just days before v****g begins in pivotal Republican p**********l primary e******ns and caucuses, U.S. Senator Ted Cruz's Canadian birth has become the constitutional powder keg of the day, eclipsing even President Obama's executive orders on immigration and guns: Does Cruz truly qualify as "natural-born," as the Constitution demands...or are some constitutional scholars and Cruz revisionists?

For conservatives who cherish the Constitution and regard themselves as strict constructionists or originalists...they hold to following the Constitution to the letter, not as sometimes "interpreted"...it's a painful dilemma. If the Framers had written "native-born," it might have been easier. What even is "natural-born?"

Worse, the Supreme Court has not resolved the issue nor has Congress ever thought to amend the Constitution to remove the restriction, such as when bodybuilder, actor and onetime governor Arnold Schwarzenegger rose in Republican ranks. And given the strong nativist element that, ironically, favors Cruz, there's no clear indication that a proposed constitutional amendment would have even survived before the nation's v**ers.

Perhaps it's an indication of how, over time, we all have rationalized the need for changes in the Constitution, right or wrong.

We on the Tribune Herald editorial board are old enough to remember when the 'natural-born" qualification for president was clearly understood to limit candidates to those born in the United States. Over time, this evolved to include the Republican p**********l candidate Barry Goldwater, born in Arizona before 1912 when it was still a U.S. territory; Republican p**********l candidate George Romney, born of U.S. parents in Mexico; and, still later, Republican p**********l candidate John McCain, a war veteran born on a U.S. military post in the Panama Canal Zone of U.S. parents.

For Cruz fans who encouraged spurious claims that Barack Obama was a Muslim born in Kenya and thus an ill********e p*******t, this constitutional question is just deserts. Should such people now rally to Cruz for president, they must face their own hypocrisy: Cruz was unquestionably born in Canada. Nor does Cruz exactly qualify for generous interpretation of Article II in the Constitution, given his recent flip-flop on the birthright provision of the 14th Amendment, which protects native-born children from deportation. (Cruz was all for keeping the provision back in a revealing 2011 interview with local Republican activist Duke Machado.)

In recent days we'e published pieces by constitutional scholars on the question: One (the most liberal of the batch) says Cruz qualifies as a p**********l candidate; the second says he clearly does not; the third states it's hardly as clear-cut as Cruz readily suggests.

Already, a Houston attorney has filed suit pressing the Supreme Court to resolve the matter. And, it was only natural that Republican front-runner Donald Trump, who a few years ago claimed Obama was born outside the United States, would batter Cruz on the same claim as Cruz's poll numbers finally rose.

Ideally, there would be no requirement that presidents of the United States be natural-born. It might have made sense after the Revolution when the British still lurked nearby (Canada, as it turned out) and some Americans (such as Thomas Jefferson) feared some countrymen might long a little too much for Mother England. But, those days are long gone and, given the United State's stunningly successful record of assimilating immigrants (as opposed to Europe) and the success of many immigrants here, pesky Article II could do with some revision. For the time, though, the best guide on the matter is to judge Candidate Cruz on his policies, merit and veracity...and curse Congress for never addressing this continually confounding constitutional matter.

jimahrens Loc: California

You actually expect Congress to do important business. For cripes sake they can't wipe their own asses.

slatten49 wrote:

Today's editorial from the Waco-Tribune Herald.....

Just days before v****g begins in pivotal Republican p**********l primary e******ns and caucuses, U.S. Senator Ted Cruz's Canadian birth has become the constitutional powder keg of the day, eclipsing even President Obama's executive orders on immigration and guns: Does Cruz truly qualify as "natural-born," as the Constitution demands...or are some constitutional scholars and Cruz revisionists?

For conservatives who cherish the Constitution and regard themselves as strict constructionists or originalists...they hold to following the Constitution to the letter, not as sometimes "interpreted"...it's a painful dilemma. If the Framers had written "native-born," it might have been easier. What even is "natural-born?"

Worse, the Supreme Court has not resolved the issue nor has Congress ever thought to amend the Constitution to remove the restriction, such as when bodybuilder, actor and onetime governor Arnold Schwarzenegger rose in Republican ranks. And given the strong nativist element that, ironically, favors Cruz, there's no clear indication that a proposed constitutional amendment would have even survived before the nation's v**ers.

Perhaps it's an indication of how, over time, we all have rationalized the need for changes in the Constitution, right or wrong.

We on the Tribune Herald editorial board are old enough to remember when the 'natural-born" qualification for president was clearly understood to limit candidates to those born in the United States. Over time, this evolved to include the Republican p**********l candidate Barry Goldwater, born in Arizona before 1912 when it was still a U.S. territory; Republican p**********l candidate George Romney, born of U.S. parents in Mexico; and, still later, Republican p**********l candidate John McCain, a war veteran born on a U.S. military post in the Panama Canal Zone of U.S. parents.

For Cruz fans who encouraged spurious claims that Barack Obama was a Muslim born in Kenya and thus an ill********e p*******t, this constitutional question is just deserts. Should such people now rally to Cruz for president, they must face their own hypocrisy: Cruz was unquestionably born in Canada. Nor does Cruz exactly qualify for generous interpretation of Article II in the Constitution, given his recent flip-flop on the birthright provision of the 14th Amendment, which protects native-born children from deportation. (Cruz was all for keeping the provision back in a revealing 2011 interview with local Republican activist Duke Machado.)

In recent days we'e published pieces by constitutional scholars on the question: One (the most liberal of the batch) says Cruz qualifies as a p**********l candidate; the second says he clearly does not; the third states it's hardly as clear-cut as Cruz readily suggests.

Already, a Houston attorney has filed suit pressing the Supreme Court to resolve the matter. And, it was only natural that Republican front-runner Donald Trump, who a few years ago claimed Obama was born outside the United States, would batter Cruz on the same claim as Cruz's poll numbers finally rose.

Ideally, there would be no requirement that presidents of the United States be natural-born. It might have made sense after the Revolution when the British still lurked nearby (Canada, as it turned out) and some Americans (such as Thomas Jefferson) feared some countrymen might long a little too much for Mother England. But, those days are long gone and, given the United State's stunningly successful record of assimilating immigrants (as opposed to Europe) and the success of many immigrants here, pesky Article II could do with some revision. For the time, though, the best guide on the matter is to judge Candidate Cruz on his policies, merit and veracity...and curse Congress for never addressing this continually confounding constitutional matter.

Today's editorial from the Waco-Tribune Herald....... (show quote)

Little Ball of Hate

jimahrens wrote:

You actually expect Congress to do important business. For cripes sake they can't wipe their own asses.

This might help.

slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas

jimahrens wrote:

You actually expect Congress to do important business. For cripes sake they can't wipe their own asses.

What I would like and what I expect are two different things, Jim. Besides, this was not written by me, but appeared to be objective in its review of the situation. :wink:

jimahrens Loc: California

I understand that was just making a broad statement.

slatten49 wrote:

What I would like and what I expect are two different things, Jim. Besides, this was not written by me, but appeared to be objective in its review of the situation. :wink:

jimahrens Loc: California

Not unless the Supreme Court actually does it's job instead of making law.

Little Ball of H**e wrote:

This might help.

Little Ball of Hate

jimahrens wrote:

Not unless the Supreme Court actually does it's job instead of making law.

I meant it as an incentive to wipe their ass. :twisted: They s**t all over the Constitution figuratively. They might as do it literally, and improve their hygiene at the same time.

jimahrens Loc: California

Little Ball of H**e wrote:

I meant it as an incentive to wipe their ass. :twisted: They s**t all over the Constitution figuratively. They might as do it literally, and improve their hygiene at the same time.

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas

jimahrens wrote:

I understand that was just making a broad statement.

Fair enough, Marine. :thumbup:

jimahrens Loc: California

Semper Fi

slatten49 wrote:

Fair enough, Marine. :thumbup:

Elwood Loc: Florida

slatten49 wrote:

Today's editorial from the Waco-Tribune Herald.....

Just days before v****g begins in pivotal Republican p**********l primary e******ns and caucuses, U.S. Senator Ted Cruz's Canadian birth has become the constitutional powder keg of the day, eclipsing even President Obama's executive orders on immigration and guns: Does Cruz truly qualify as "natural-born," as the Constitution demands...or are some constitutional scholars and Cruz revisionists?

For conservatives who cherish the Constitution and regard themselves as strict constructionists or originalists...they hold to following the Constitution to the letter, not as sometimes "interpreted"...it's a painful dilemma. If the Framers had written "native-born," it might have been easier. What even is "natural-born?"

Worse, the Supreme Court has not resolved the issue nor has Congress ever thought to amend the Constitution to remove the restriction, such as when bodybuilder, actor and onetime governor Arnold Schwarzenegger rose in Republican ranks. And given the strong nativist element that, ironically, favors Cruz, there's no clear indication that a proposed constitutional amendment would have even survived before the nation's v**ers.

Perhaps it's an indication of how, over time, we all have rationalized the need for changes in the Constitution, right or wrong.

We on the Tribune Herald editorial board are old enough to remember when the 'natural-born" qualification for president was clearly understood to limit candidates to those born in the United States. Over time, this evolved to include the Republican p**********l candidate Barry Goldwater, born in Arizona before 1912 when it was still a U.S. territory; Republican p**********l candidate George Romney, born of U.S. parents in Mexico; and, still later, Republican p**********l candidate John McCain, a war veteran born on a U.S. military post in the Panama Canal Zone of U.S. parents.

For Cruz fans who encouraged spurious claims that Barack Obama was a Muslim born in Kenya and thus an ill********e p*******t, this constitutional question is just deserts. Should such people now rally to Cruz for president, they must face their own hypocrisy: Cruz was unquestionably born in Canada. Nor does Cruz exactly qualify for generous interpretation of Article II in the Constitution, given his recent flip-flop on the birthright provision of the 14th Amendment, which protects native-born children from deportation. (Cruz was all for keeping the provision back in a revealing 2011 interview with local Republican activist Duke Machado.)

In recent days we'e published pieces by constitutional scholars on the question: One (the most liberal of the batch) says Cruz qualifies as a p**********l candidate; the second says he clearly does not; the third states it's hardly as clear-cut as Cruz readily suggests.

Already, a Houston attorney has filed suit pressing the Supreme Court to resolve the matter. And, it was only natural that Republican front-runner Donald Trump, who a few years ago claimed Obama was born outside the United States, would batter Cruz on the same claim as Cruz's poll numbers finally rose.

Ideally, there would be no requirement that presidents of the United States be natural-born. It might have made sense after the Revolution when the British still lurked nearby (Canada, as it turned out) and some Americans (such as Thomas Jefferson) feared some countrymen might long a little too much for Mother England. But, those days are long gone and, given the United State's stunningly successful record of assimilating immigrants (as opposed to Europe) and the success of many immigrants here, pesky Article II could do with some revision. For the time, though, the best guide on the matter is to judge Candidate Cruz on his policies, merit and veracity...and curse Congress for never addressing this continually confounding constitutional matter.

Today's editorial from the Waco-Tribune Herald....... (show quote)

Sure is a s**tty situation. If they allowed Obummer to run and also McCain, I don't see why there should be such a problem for Cruz.
:hunf: :XD: :XD:

MrEd Loc: Georgia

slatten49 wrote:

Today's editorial from the Waco-Tribune Herald.....

Just days before v****g begins in pivotal Republican p**********l primary e******ns and caucuses, U.S. Senator Ted Cruz's Canadian birth has become the constitutional powder keg of the day, eclipsing even President Obama's executive orders on immigration and guns: Does Cruz truly qualify as "natural-born," as the Constitution demands...or are some constitutional scholars and Cruz revisionists?

For conservatives who cherish the Constitution and regard themselves as strict constructionists or originalists...they hold to following the Constitution to the letter, not as sometimes "interpreted"...it's a painful dilemma. If the Framers had written "native-born," it might have been easier. What even is "natural-born?"

Worse, the Supreme Court has not resolved the issue nor has Congress ever thought to amend the Constitution to remove the restriction, such as when bodybuilder, actor and onetime governor Arnold Schwarzenegger rose in Republican ranks. And given the strong nativist element that, ironically, favors Cruz, there's no clear indication that a proposed constitutional amendment would have even survived before the nation's v**ers.

Perhaps it's an indication of how, over time, we all have rationalized the need for changes in the Constitution, right or wrong.

We on the Tribune Herald editorial board are old enough to remember when the 'natural-born" qualification for president was clearly understood to limit candidates to those born in the United States. Over time, this evolved to include the Republican p**********l candidate Barry Goldwater, born in Arizona before 1912 when it was still a U.S. territory; Republican p**********l candidate George Romney, born of U.S. parents in Mexico; and, still later, Republican p**********l candidate John McCain, a war veteran born on a U.S. military post in the Panama Canal Zone of U.S. parents.

For Cruz fans who encouraged spurious claims that Barack Obama was a Muslim born in Kenya and thus an ill********e p*******t, this constitutional question is just deserts. Should such people now rally to Cruz for president, they must face their own hypocrisy: Cruz was unquestionably born in Canada. Nor does Cruz exactly qualify for generous interpretation of Article II in the Constitution, given his recent flip-flop on the birthright provision of the 14th Amendment, which protects native-born children from deportation. (Cruz was all for keeping the provision back in a revealing 2011 interview with local Republican activist Duke Machado.)

In recent days we'e published pieces by constitutional scholars on the question: One (the most liberal of the batch) says Cruz qualifies as a p**********l candidate; the second says he clearly does not; the third states it's hardly as clear-cut as Cruz readily suggests.

Already, a Houston attorney has filed suit pressing the Supreme Court to resolve the matter. And, it was only natural that Republican front-runner Donald Trump, who a few years ago claimed Obama was born outside the United States, would batter Cruz on the same claim as Cruz's poll numbers finally rose.

Ideally, there would be no requirement that presidents of the United States be natural-born. It might have made sense after the Revolution when the British still lurked nearby (Canada, as it turned out) and some Americans (such as Thomas Jefferson) feared some countrymen might long a little too much for Mother England. But, those days are long gone and, given the United State's stunningly successful record of assimilating immigrants (as opposed to Europe) and the success of many immigrants here, pesky Article II could do with some revision. For the time, though, the best guide on the matter is to judge Candidate Cruz on his policies, merit and veracity...and curse Congress for never addressing this continually confounding constitutional matter.

Today's editorial from the Waco-Tribune Herald....... (show quote)

obama is the best example of why a President should be a natural born citizen. Neither he nor Cruz are natural born citizens and BOTH OF THEM KNOW IT. obama should be impeached for what he has done and tried for treason, but that will never happen because most of the people in Congress are owned by the rich like Soros.......................

zillaorange

MrEd wrote:

obama is the best example of why a President should be a natural born citizen. Neither he nor Cruz are natural born citizens and BOTH OF THEM KNOW IT. obama should be impeached for what he has done and tried for treason, but that will never happen because most of the people in Congress are owned by the rich like Soros.......................

wasn't Rubio born in Cuba ?

OnlyMe

If you say the Constitution is nothing or less than that then you don't know what you have here and should definitely trade places with someone who knows what you have. That's the only way some people are going to learn what it means.

zillaorange

OnlyMe wrote:

If you say the Constitution is nothing or less than that then you don't know what you have here and should definitely trade places with someone who knows what you have. That's the only way some people are going to learn what it means.

sadly it seems, some will never learn !