mindfu
March 11, 2017, 4:06pm
60
He’s apparently responding to the pretty blatant about-face that occurred re: Ted Cruz’s candidacy. From Tribe’s article in the Boston Globe, which the “Constitutioncenter.org ” site was, er, citing:
Footface:
…But the kind of judge Cruz says he admires and would appoint to the Supreme Court is an “originalist,” one who claims to be bound by the narrowly historical meaning of the Constitution’s terms at the time of their adoption. To his kind of judge, Cruz ironically wouldn’t be eligible, because the legal principles that prevailed in the 1780s and ’90s required that someone actually be born on US soil to be a “natural born” citizen. Even having two US parents wouldn’t suffice. And having just an American mother, as Cruz did, would have been insufficient at a time that made patrilineal descent decisive.
…On the other hand, the kind of judge I admire and Cruz abhors is a “living constitutionalist,” one who believes that the Constitution’s meaning evolves with the perceived needs of the time and longstanding practice. To that kind of judge, Cruz would be eligible to serve because it no longer makes sense to be bound by the narrow historical definition that would disqualify him.http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2016/01/explaining-the-natural-born-presidency-controversy/
2 Likes
