I read an article (dated January 13, 2016) in Newsweek and it made my day.
Finally, there is someone who agrees with me. Well … him, and … an increasing number of high-profile constitutional law professors, including one of Cruz’s own professors from Harvard Law School.
It seems more every-day people like me and high-profile constitutional law professors, like Thomas Lee, at Fordham University, don’t necessarily agree with Cruz, and his high-profile constitutional lawyers. This surprises me about Cruz, since he is a constitutional lawyer, and claims to be an “originalist.” (One who believes in the meaning of the Constitution at the time it was ratified, in 1788 … as the people then, would have believed it to mean)
Lee argues, at the time the Constitution was ratified, jus sanguinis applied only to patrilineal descent.
In other words (mine) … in 1788 …women gave birth to babies, but … not citizenship status.
As much as Gloria Steinem would be screaming and pulling her hair out at that statement, it remains true. In fact … because it was true … women, even before her time have worked hard for the rights of women. But … I digress.
I believe our founding fathers were influenced by Vattel and his Law of Nations (in fact Law of Nations is mentioned in the US Constitution, in Article 1 Section 8. That, and again, women at that time gave birth to … well you know …
Vattel stated that the country of the Father (not mother, but the father) is the country of the children. At the time the Constitution was written, women had very few, if any, rights. In fact, when a woman of wealth married … oftentimes … all her money (dowry) became the property of her husband. So … why would anyone believe that the founders thought the birth place of the mother would be important, or even considered by the founders and our framers of the U.S. Constitution? I am more willing to believe the interpretations as they were at the time of the creation of this document, than any modern-day person’s interpretation.
Our founders/framers absolved themselves from any allegiance to the British Crown, in the writing of the Declaration of Independence … and declared the colonies free and independent. With the signing of the Declaration of Independence they also declared themselves as “We the people of the United States”, and citizens thereof.
As for as the qualifications for President are concerned, it states that No Person except a natural-born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THIS CONSTITUTION … shall be eligible.
In order, I believe, to properly “interpret” anything that was left unclear in the Constitution (although I believe that it is very clear) … one must think like the people thought, in some very different times, and not interpret these documents … in the way we think today, and without any personal agenda.
With that being said … I also do not believe the Supreme Court is the “Law of the Land”. It is simply the highest court (created by our framers) in which cases are tried, and the Constitution is mishandled and misinterpreted, and cases are judged solely based on some really good lawyers (good doesn’t necessarily mean … good) … for that one specific case.
Now, let’s review. Cruz was born in Canada. His mother was American … and his Father was Cuban. Cruz was Canadian … until he was American.
And, in 1778, at the time the Constitution was ratified …. women gave birth … but not citizenship status.
Okay … on more time … in 1778 … women gave birth … well, you know…..
By Debbie Barth 2/11/2016 4:41 pm EST