That would be Ted Cruz.
The hard-line conservatives believe that the Constitution has to be interpreted by the original intent of the Framers. The problem for ol' Rafael is that back in the 18th Century, citizenship was determined by either the birthplace of the person or the citizenship of the father.
Which means that, if you interpret the Constitution the way that Ted Cruz normally would do, he's not eligible to run for president. If you interpret the Constitution the way that conservatives hate, as a document that takes up the meaning of the current times, then he is eligible.
The only non-hypocrite in the Cruz birtherism flap is The Donald, who is proving to be an equal-opportunity birther.
Reorder Disorder
35 minutes ago
4 comments:
if his mother did not even register the birth with the us consul in canada, then he could not even legally be a senator or congressman, if I understand it correctly?
I'll go with the conservative interpretation because that would make him a Cuban not a Canadian .
I'm really puzzled by this notion of "original intent". I realize that in practice it's pretty much used to justify whatever the right-wing fetish is this week. But Scalia, for instance, is said to hold to original intent, and I guess he's supposed to be a competent lawyer.
I keep imagining "original intent" applied to a **real** discipline --
Chemistry: What is this "Periodic Table"? Lavoisier never needed such nonsense!
Engineering: Liquid fuel?!?! Coal was good enough for Watt!
You get the idea. It's the kind of thinking that gets a laugh in lecture one of any intro science class. I don't really have a lot of love for the sainted Founders, but I'm pretty sure that they weren't obtuse. I don't believe they imagined -- intended -- that they were writing a sacred text that would prescribe exactly, literally, how their descendents would live. Yet, again, something like this is supposedly the mental Pole Star of a guy like Scalia, who's at the summit of his, er, trade.
So my question is, in the law schools, do grownups actually teach and study and treat seriously this "doctrine"? Because it seems positively medieval, and a real obstacle to understanding the world as it is. Law is supposed to be at least slightly related to the world as it is, no?
I'd guess that in 1788, wood was the predominant fuel. Not that newfangled coal stuff.
Post a Comment