Tweet
It May Be Time to Resolve the Meaning of ‘Natural Born’
The New York Times
Carl Hulse
1/18/2016
Excerpts:
WASHINGTON — After he left Wall Street to enter politics eight years ago, Representative Jim Himes, Democrat of Connecticut, began fielding the occasional question of when he intended to run for president.
“It has come up in jest any number of times,” said Mr. Himes, who always has his answer ready. “There could be constitutional questions.”
Mr. Himes, you see, was born in Peru in 1966 while his father worked for the Ford Foundation. That makes him one of at least 17 current members of Congress who, because of their birth outside the United States, could run afoul of the Constitution’s “natural born citizen” presidential requirement should they try to relocate down Pennsylvania Avenue.
For generations, confusion and uncertainty have surrounded this murky presidential qualification. It is a question that dogged President Obama, and even his challenger in 2008, Senator John McCain. With “birtherism” now seemingly a regular feature of American politics, demand is mounting for a definitive answer to the modern meaning of “natural born,” a term that was crafted in an era when ocean crossings took months and people rarely ventured more than a few miles beyond where they were born. - (bold, underline and color emphasis added)
....................................
Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, a Republican presidential candidate, is the latest White House contender to have his natural born credentials challenged. Born in 1970 in Calgary, Alberta, to an American mother and a Cuban father, Mr. Cruz has seen his legitimacy disputed both by an opponent, Donald J. Trump, and in a new lawsuit filed in Texas — possibly the first of several.
Mr. Cruz says his legal standing is not in doubt, but it is not so simple.
The overarching problem is that the Supreme Court has never been forced to interpret the clunky clause, leaving persuasive legal interpretations that range from arguing that the entire debate is nonsensical to asserting that only those born to certified American parents on verifiable American soil can aspire to the White House.
Laurence H. Tribe, the Harvard law professor and constitutional scholar, believes the “natural born” provision has outlived its original intent considering that the redcoats are no longer coming.
“The worry that George III might come over and exert undue Germanic or British influence is no longer a threat,” said Mr. Tribe, referring to a motivating fear of the founding fathers. “There is no defense now for retaining the clause in the Constitution. It really needs to be removed.”
..................................................
Mr. Tribe paints a theoretical scenario where the quickest answer could be provided in a legal case. Say Mr. Cruz becomes the Republican nominee, yet is denied a spot on the ballot in a state with a meaningful number of electoral votes. As the injured party, Mr. Cruz would certainly have motivation to sue as well as standing, a threshold often difficult to meet in such cases. And the courts would have incentive to act quickly before a crisis, hopefully resulting in a definitive ruling that would settle the issue.
.................................................. .........
The struggle over the “natural born” provision has greater meaning as well. Interpreted at its narrowest, it would eliminate from the presidential pool tens of thousands of bona fide Americans who are no less citizens than their neighbors. They would be shut out purely by accident of birth abroad — quite possibly because their parents were away serving the nation’s interests.
“That in itself is rather undemocratic,” Mr. Tribe said.
....................................
View the complete article, including images, at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/19/us...ural-born.html
The New York Times
Carl Hulse
1/18/2016
Excerpts:
WASHINGTON — After he left Wall Street to enter politics eight years ago, Representative Jim Himes, Democrat of Connecticut, began fielding the occasional question of when he intended to run for president.
“It has come up in jest any number of times,” said Mr. Himes, who always has his answer ready. “There could be constitutional questions.”
Mr. Himes, you see, was born in Peru in 1966 while his father worked for the Ford Foundation. That makes him one of at least 17 current members of Congress who, because of their birth outside the United States, could run afoul of the Constitution’s “natural born citizen” presidential requirement should they try to relocate down Pennsylvania Avenue.
For generations, confusion and uncertainty have surrounded this murky presidential qualification. It is a question that dogged President Obama, and even his challenger in 2008, Senator John McCain. With “birtherism” now seemingly a regular feature of American politics, demand is mounting for a definitive answer to the modern meaning of “natural born,” a term that was crafted in an era when ocean crossings took months and people rarely ventured more than a few miles beyond where they were born. - (bold, underline and color emphasis added)
....................................
Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, a Republican presidential candidate, is the latest White House contender to have his natural born credentials challenged. Born in 1970 in Calgary, Alberta, to an American mother and a Cuban father, Mr. Cruz has seen his legitimacy disputed both by an opponent, Donald J. Trump, and in a new lawsuit filed in Texas — possibly the first of several.
Mr. Cruz says his legal standing is not in doubt, but it is not so simple.
The overarching problem is that the Supreme Court has never been forced to interpret the clunky clause, leaving persuasive legal interpretations that range from arguing that the entire debate is nonsensical to asserting that only those born to certified American parents on verifiable American soil can aspire to the White House.
Laurence H. Tribe, the Harvard law professor and constitutional scholar, believes the “natural born” provision has outlived its original intent considering that the redcoats are no longer coming.
“The worry that George III might come over and exert undue Germanic or British influence is no longer a threat,” said Mr. Tribe, referring to a motivating fear of the founding fathers. “There is no defense now for retaining the clause in the Constitution. It really needs to be removed.”
..................................................
Mr. Tribe paints a theoretical scenario where the quickest answer could be provided in a legal case. Say Mr. Cruz becomes the Republican nominee, yet is denied a spot on the ballot in a state with a meaningful number of electoral votes. As the injured party, Mr. Cruz would certainly have motivation to sue as well as standing, a threshold often difficult to meet in such cases. And the courts would have incentive to act quickly before a crisis, hopefully resulting in a definitive ruling that would settle the issue.
.................................................. .........
The struggle over the “natural born” provision has greater meaning as well. Interpreted at its narrowest, it would eliminate from the presidential pool tens of thousands of bona fide Americans who are no less citizens than their neighbors. They would be shut out purely by accident of birth abroad — quite possibly because their parents were away serving the nation’s interests.
“That in itself is rather undemocratic,” Mr. Tribe said.
....................................
View the complete article, including images, at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/19/us...ural-born.html
Comment