By Hans von Spakovsky
* * *
Harvard law professor Lawrence Tribe’s view of the
Constitution and the “natural born” citizen issue seems to blow with the
political winds.
* THE LATEST EXAMPLE BEING HIS 180-DEGREE TURN REGARDING
"BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP."
Why has his view completely switched from 2008? Is it
because, as Sen. Ted Cruz said at the Republican debate on Jan. 14, Tribe is a
“left-wing judicial activist” and “a major Hillary Clinton supporter?”
* Er... YEAH!
(*LAUGHING*)
On March 19, 2008, Tribe and Theodore B. Olson, solicitor
general during the last Bush administration, published an “opinion letter” in
relation to John McCain and the meaning of the “natural born” citizen
requirement. In that letter, Tribe said the exact opposite of what he just said
in his [recent, infamous] Boston Globe commentary:
“The U.S. Supreme Court gives meaning to terms that are
not expressly defined in the Constitution by looking to the context in which
those terms are used; to statutes enacted by the First Congress...and to the Common
Law at the time of the Founding. 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.”
Tribe (and Olson) then went on to specifically cite the
successive statutes passed by Congress on this issue, including the
Naturalization Act of 1790. They made the point that “the statute that the
First Congress enacted on this subject not only established that such children
are U.S. citizens, but also expressly referred to them as ‘natural born
citizens.’”
They even cite to the British Nationality Act of 1730, which
provided that children born to a British citizen were “natural-born Subjects...to
all Intents, Constructions and Purposes whatsoever.”
According to Tribe – at least in 2008 – Sen. McCain’s
status as a natural born citizen, though he was born abroad, was “consistent
with British statutes in force when the Constitution was drafted, which
undoubtedly informed the Framers’ understanding of the Natural Born Citizen
Clause.”
(*SMIRK*)
For those who think the case regarding John McCain is
different because he was born on a U.S. military base, Tribe blithely dismisses
that as an issue. The opinion letter says that “regardless of the sovereign
status of the Panama Canal Zone at the time of Senator McCain’s birth, he is a
‘natural born’ citizen because he was born to parents who were U.S. citizens.”
* FOLKS. I'M ALWAYS HONEST WITH YOU, RIGHT? SO... LET ME
REACT AS I WOULD IF THIS WERE AN ARTICLE I MAINLY DISAGREED WITH:
* PARENTS... PLURAL... OR PARENT... SINGULAR?
(*SHRUG*)
* OBVIOUSLY THIS QUESTION NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED.
* THE AUTHOR OF THIS PIECE UNFORTUNATELY FAILS TO ADDRESS
THIS QUESTION. INSTEAD... HE CONTINUES:
In a prior article, I explained the legal interpretation
of the requirement in Article II, Sec. 1 of the Constitution that a president
be a “natural born Citizen.” The Framers had a deep understanding of British Common
Law and applied its precepts in drafting the Constitution. One of those
precepts was that children born to a British citizen anywhere in the world,
even outside the dominions of the British Empire, were “natural born” citizens
of the Empire who owed their allegiance to the Crown.
* AGAIN... "A" BRITISH CITIZEN? ASSUMING THE
SINGULAR... WOULD THE "A" BE THE MOTHER... OR THE FATHER?
(*SHRUG*)
* AGAIN... FOLKS... BASIC INTEGRITY DEMANDS THAT THESE
QUESTIONS BE ASKED AND ANSWERED!
The First Congress, which included many of the Framers,
codified this view of a natural born citizen in the Naturalization Act of 1790,
which specified that the children of a U.S. citizen born “out of the limits of
the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens.” The modern
version of this Act is found at 8 U.S.C. §1401. There is little doubt that Ted
Cruz meets this requirement since his mother was a U.S. citizen when he was
born.
* AGAIN... JUST OUT OF CURIOSITY... DOES THE AUTHOR
BELIEVE THAT HAD IT BEEN CRUZ'S FATHER WHO WAS THE AMERICAN AND CRUZ'S MOTHER
WHO WAS THE CANADIAN THAT THE SAME LOGIC WOULD APPLY TO ANALYZING THE STATUTE AND
ITS HISTORICAL/CULTURAL MOORINGS WOULD APPLY?
* JUST... ASKING.
(*SHRUG*)
* I TRULY AM SADDENED THAT THE CONSERVATIVE REVIEW EDITOR
FAILED TO DEMAND THAT THESE QUESTIONS - AND THE AUTHORS ANSWERS TO THEM - MAKE NO APPEARANCE IN THIS OPINION PIECE.
In a Boston Globe commentary on Jan. 11, 2016, Lawrence
Tribe now claims that “the legal principles that prevailed in the 1780s and
’90s required that someone actually be born on U.S. soil to be a ‘natural born’
citizen.”
* SO... DID TRIBE JUST... Er... CHANGE HIS MIND...
"COINCIDENTALLY" TIMED TO COINCIDE WITH CRUZ'S RUN FOR THE WHITE HOUSE?
(*SMIRK*)
* WHAT A P.O.S., HUH?!
Tribe [now] sarcastically claims that Ted Cruz is
disqualified because the type of judge that Cruz admires “and says he would
appoint to the Supreme Court is an ‘Originalist,’ one who claims to be bound”
by the historical meaning of the Constitution when it was adopted. Based on the
legal principles that prevailed at the time of the Constitution, Tribe now says
the supposed “original” meaning of “natural born” citizen only applies to
someone born on U.S. soil. Funny how Tribe’s recitation of the legal principles
that supposedly prevailed in the late 1700s and his interpretation of the
original meaning of this constitutional provision have completely changed in
only eight years.
(*SNORT*)
(*SMIRK*)
* AGAIN... TOTAL P.O.S.
Just about the only true fact in Tribe’s Jan. 11 opinion
is his assertion that this issue has never been settled by a Supreme Court
opinion.
In 2008, Lawrence Tribe agreed with me. In 2016, he has
suddenly changed his mind. I guess that is an example of the Harvard Law School
view of a “living Constitution.”
No comments:
Post a Comment