Hypocritical to Vote for an Ineligible Ted Cruz?

By Douglas V. Gibbs

The United States Constitution is the Law of the Land.  It is everything we are, and the foundation of the rule of law in our country.  If we don't abide by the Constitution, we place at risk our very soul as a country.  Our first consideration under normal circumstances must be the original intent of the United States Constitution.  That is why the question regarding the eligibility of Ted Cruz to be President of the United States is such a difficult one to answer for me.

A number of times on Political Pistachio, and on my radio programs, I have said that Ted Cruz is not eligible for the Presidency of the United States, and I say that based on my lifetime of studies of the United States Constitution, and especially after consulting three resources.  Those sources are 1) Vatell's Law of Nations; 2) The Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1790; and 3) The 1875 Minor v. Happersett case (and more specifically, Chief Justice's Morrison Waite's written opinion).  Unlike the other "Ted Cruz Birthers," I recognize that his place of birth in Canada has nothing to do with his failure to meet the requirements to be a Natural Born Citizen.  Ted Cruz, in many ways, is more American than most folks born on our own soil.  Ideologically, he is exactly what we need in the White House.  I believe he is a fantastic U.S. Senator, and I would hope he would be a good President, though I do have doubts only because of his lack of executive experience.

Of the candidates, Ted Cruz is probably our best choice.  I was originally a Scott Walker fan, but his lack of charisma, and the poor management of his campaign, forced him out of the race.  That leaves us with a number of decent candidates, a few I don't trust, and Ted Cruz who is the epitome of what conservatism and the Tea Party is all about.

One of the arguments we are hearing in the debate all over the media and among the political minds is that no court has ever made the decision on what the definition of Natural Born Citizen truly is, and that is false.  Though the case was not specifically about defining Natural Born Citizen, the Chief Justice of the United States, in his opinion regarding the Minor v. Happersett case heard by the United States Supreme Court, wrote the following:

 “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [88 U.S. 162, 168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words ‘all children’ are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as ‘all persons,’ and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.”

Vatell's Law of Nations, a written volume detailing the common definitions of the time, also states that both parents must be citizens at the time of the birth of the child.  Vatell's Law of Nations was very important to the Framers of the Constitution, revealed by the fact that Benjamin Franklin owned three copies (one for himself, and two for the convention), and George Washington was in possession of a borrowed copy during his presidency (of which he never returned, and his failure to return the book to the New York Public Library was noticed in 2010).

The Immigration of Naturalization Act of 1790, written at a time that the Framers of the Constitution were still heavily involved in American Politics, declares:  "And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States."

It begins, "The children of citizens of the United States."  The word "citizens" is plural, just as "citizens" and "parents" is in Chief Justice Waite's judicial opinion.  Plurality means more than one.  Two parents.  Both parents, according to that clause, must be citizens in order for a child "born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States" to be "considered as natural born citizens."

One more thing, Thomas Jefferson, penned Virginia’s Citizenship statue in 1779, wrote “Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that all white persons born within the territory of this commonwealth and all who have resided therein two years next before the passing of this act, and all who shall hereafter migrate into the same; and shall before any court of record give satisfactory proof by their own oath or affirmation, that they intend to reside therein, and moreover shall give assurance of fidelity to the commonwealth; and all infants wheresoever born, whose father, if living, or otherwise, whose mother was, a citizen at the time of their birth, or who migrate hither, their father, if living, or otherwise their mother becoming a citizen, or who migrate hither without father or mother, shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth, until they relinquish that character in manner as herein after expressed: And all others not being citizens of any the United States of America, shall be deemed aliens.”  

In other words, Jefferson saw that the citizenship of the father was more important that the citizenship of the mother in questions of citizenship (let alone that of Natural Born Citizenship).  In both the cases of Obama, and that of Ted Cruz, the claim of Natural Born Citizenship is being claimed as valid because of the citizenship of the mother.

To me, the definition of Natural Born Citizen is clear.  No matter where you are born, and I don't care if you were born on the steps of the White House, both parents need to be citizens at the time of the birth of the child in order for the child to be a natural born citizen.  End of argument.

So, under normal conditions, there is no way I would vote for Ted Cruz for President.  I could not in good conscience pull the lever for the man because he is not eligible for the Presidency of the United States.

But, these are not normal conditions, and these are not normal times.

A comment on one of my articles regarding this conundrum I face reads as follows: So in other words, violate the US Constitution to support it? Seems like something of a double standard to me. At least in my view. I still couldn't pull the handle, punch the hole, fill in the hole, push the button, etc. The eligibility of the President was one of the things that the was included so that the it wouldn't be a suicide pact as was put. Even if it means that Cruz is as ineligible as can be, the standard should be followed because it is a set standard, and not give into "because they did it's ok" or even "break the law to follow it".

I totally get it.  The commenter is exactly right. . . during normal conditions, and normal times.  My response was this:   You know, Jeremy, at first I was in full agreement with you. The Constitution is very important to me, and abiding by the rule of law is as well. Standards, and abiding by those standards, is what built this country. Nonetheless, this is not a normal election. We are in the final year of an invasion, a coup that has nearly destroyed our country, and to hand the country over to the enemy seeking to destroy our country again over this, and refusing to vote for the most ideologically sound candidate in this election over this, feels to me like we would be handing over the country to the enemy for their final kill. It is a real Catch-22, isn't it? I just can't do it, I can't refuse to vote, thus assisting in the fall of America, over this. Yes, he's not eligible, yes, I believe in the rule of law, yes, in any other circumstance I would be like you and refuse to show any support for Cruz or vote for him, because he is not legally eligible. But in this case, to do so, may mean the end of America.

I am an American, I am a Constitutionalist, and I wish to do whatever it takes to save my country. . . and for the first time in my life, and hopefully the only time in my life, I am willing to set aside the Constitution in order to save the country.  The country is in so much trouble that for the first time in my life I am going to support an ineligible candidate, Ted Cruz, if he wins the nomination to be the Republican Party's candidate for the Presidency of the United States.

Does that make me a hypocrite?  I don't know.  I suppose.  But, I think my decision shows how dire I believe our situation after eight years of Obama truly is.  This election may very well mean the difference between a continuance of the United States as a nation founded in liberty, and the death of the American System as the minions of statism dismantle it and transform America into something else. . . at least for a while.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary