"Born in the USA??????"

Given the dialogue that followed the most recent Republican debate on the topic of the Constitutional requirements applicable to anyone seeking the Office of the President and the dispute that has been on-going for  weeks regarding Senator Cruz and his birthplace in Canada, I just have to chime in.  The dialogue so far has been much muddled and pretty far off of the mark.  The general dialogue falls into one of two positions: 1. As Cruz repeats over and over, the issue is "settled law" and that someone born to parents (or one parent) that is a legitimate US Citizen, are "natural born" citizens; and, 2. That a "natural born" citizen must have been born on US soil (Trump).

The pundit dialogue so far seems to reveal that those commenting on the topic have done so without adequate research and have taken the easy way out by simply stating that the US Supreme Court has never ruled on this narrow issue.  And, so goes the argument, without a Supreme Court ruling it is impossible to determine just what constitutes a "natural born citizen." This is simply just a dodge. Those that support the Cruz position - that it is already "settled law" - have evaporated from the commentary - as they should have done from the start - insofar as this issue is certainly not "settled law."  The actual answer to this question is relatively simple and makes common sense.  Citizenship results in only one of two ways - one is either "natural born" or "nationalized."  The former is a consequence of place of birth and citizenship is conferred automatically as outlined in the Constitution.  The latter is citizenship conferred by statute adopted by Congress outlining the conditions that must be met by those not "natural born" citizens.  Citizenship is generally not automatic and may be conferred in a variety of ways.  As a statute, the law may be amended from time to time or altered by judicial decision, changing the conditions and/or requirements necessary to achieve citizenship.  These are "naturalized" citizens. 

This debate evidently revolves around the issue of what the Framers of the Constitution meant or intended the language of the Constitution to mean when they distinguished the highest office in the land - the presidency - from the other significant offices - the House, Senate, and Supreme Court.  All required citizenship as a prerequisite  but just one - the presidency - requires that the person assuming office must be a "natural born" citizen.  If there was no difference in the citizenship requirement, why distinguish one from the other with different language?  One cannot find a better authority on what the Framers intended in 1788 than William Blackstone - the single most respected expert on legal intent and interpretation of legal language in that time period.  In fact, to this day Blackstone, a colonial period British legal scholar, remains the premier authority of interpreting legal and statutory language before the American Court system and in  law schools teaching western legal traditions.  As a Harvard law School graduate, Ted Cruz certainly knows this very well.... just as he knows that this matter IS NOT "settled law."

Blackstone noted in his discussion of electoral qualifications for high office that "natural born" meant "born within the borders of the nation" versus, born outside the borders of the nation.  The physical "nation" includes all of the legal territories of the nation including territories, colonies, military bases and/or embassy properties as defined by law. However, the law cannot define some other country as "within the borders of the United States." For those born outside these parameters, NATURALIZATION as a statutory construct provides a legal path to citizenship.  There was a time when children of US Citizens born outside the country were required to go through a process of "naturalization" and were clearly not "natural born" citizens.  Somewhere around 1934, Congress passed a statute conferring automatic citizenship on the children of US Citizens born elsewhere.  That statute has been amended several times over the years to liberalize the rules for children "born outside the borders of the nation."  Still, no amendment can confer "natural born" citizenship status on an individual who was not born inside the country - therefore, all such "automatic" citizens ARE NOT "natural born" citizens.  The point is, why would Congress need to pass a law to cover these circumstances if such children were constitutionally "natural born?"  Conferring "automatic" citizenship or "naturalized" citizenship is not the same thing as a "natural born" citizen, according to Blackstone.

Of course, not being a member of the Supreme Court, my opinion is of little consequence at this point.  My degrees in history and sociology certainly do not compare with training in the law, especially from a well respected institution such as Harvard University.  But, common sense (and Blackstone as well) reveals that the issue is not as unclear as Senator Cruz would want us to believe.  Perhaps Bruce Springsteen had it right all along.  What counts is being "Born in the USA" - period.  Do not be satisfied with guesswork and ask your staff to research Blackstone.  That widely accepted legal authority makes the issue quite clear - the only thing that makes you a "natural born" citizen is place of birth.  One must be born "on the land" of the nation.  Persons born elsewhere can become citizens - by  statutorily conferred automatic citizenship or by a "naturalization" process - but can never be "natural born" citizens.  As a result, though citizens all, only the "natural born" can occupy the office of the Presidency.  It appears that does not include Ted Cruz.

I don't think that we are in Kansas anymore Toto.....

Just some notes regarding Obama Care AKA as the ACA.....  You know, sometimes the New Year brings with it a new appreciation for what is important....  Sometimes, it brings with it a pledge to change course from the destructive habits of the past.... And, sometimes, an individual learns nothing from the past and charges into the abyss anyhow.  Lets consider  two cases of Republican response to the ACA that made headlines  this past week...

DATELINE:  THE BELTWAY.  Still wet behind the ears from his fast ascendancy to the Speakership of the House, former budget hawk and Republican Vice-Presidential candidate Paul Ryan - AGAIN - led an effort to repeal the ACA and deny health care to more than 14 million Americans who have joined the system since 2012.  Remember that these - and many more - had NO ACCESS to health insurance before the ACA for a variety of reasons - pre-existing conditions, cost beyond means, etc.  So, instead of putting forth some viable alternative or a set of proposals aimed at a "fix" for what the opponents believe is wrong with the system, Speaker Ryan's solution - once again - is to pull out the meat ax and chop away.  No suggestions. No alternatives. No amendments or alyernatives.  Just inflict pain on those who are barely hanging on by their fingernails..... no lifeline, no lubricant.....  just throw them to the wolves.... Ryan knows, of course (doesn't everyone?), that the bill will be vetoed by President Obama....  but, he passes the repeal of the ACA anyway (Bronx cheer and all)... and, the Republican Senate follows along.  You might think that this is an election year or something.......  So, what did all of these Beltway Right-Wingers learn from 2015?  Evidently, nothing.  Same old tune while Congressional approval polls (House and Senate) continue to fall into record single digits).  No New Year Resolutions for change....  no reform of the old ways dialogue....  Lets just repeat the mistakes of the past, continue to derail progress and oppose any reasonable proposals regardless of the source on say... common sense gun control or immigration policy or repair of infrastructure.  Instead, let's investigate Benghazi for the 14th time (whatever happened to Howdy Gowdy anyhow?) And hold a weekly repeal of Obama Care over and over...... Maybe we can shut the government down again or default on the debt?  Some folks never learn....

DATELINE: KENTUCKY.  Seems that the state of Kentucky has a new Republican Governor.  Matt Bevin is a Tea Party favorite who pledged all along the campaign trail to repeal Kentuckycare - Kynect.  The programs is the state's version of Obamacare using their own exchange to sign up those in need, and, in fact, IS Obamacare... and is wildly popular in Kentucky.  In spite of his position on this issue, Bevin won a close contest in November and announced that he would dismantle the health care program before the end of 2015.  Of course, he doesn't take office until 2016....  but, hey, that small detail never stopped a Tea Party member in their tracks... Just dress like Indians and throw some health care in the harbor in the dead of night!  Hmmmmm.....  Now that we are getting closer to Bevin taking power.... it seems that he is having second thoughts....  Maybe Kynect isn't so bad after all....  Or, perhaps he saw that repeal of this program and throwing hundreds of thousands of Kentucky residents (and voters) off the health care rolls without some alternative just wasn't a really good political move to make in his first month in office......  In any case, he is re-thinking his position on the matter..... Meanwhile, our fearless Senate Majority Leader, Senator Mitch McConnell who supported Kynect and took some pride and credit for getting hundreds of thousands of Kentuckians health insurance, voted for the Repeal last week!  Looks like a case of BELTWAY vs REALITY.  So, maybe the new Governor of Kentucky had an epiphany last week while the Beltway crowd sank deeper into the abyss....  How all this plays out with be quite the play to follow in 2016.....  As Shakespeare wrote, "the play is the thing."  Oh,,, let's not forget that the ACA is modeled on the Romney Plan adopted in Massachusetts before he ran for president against Barack Obama.....

See you on the field of play.....  Check in often for more info and comment on the nature of the 2016 race - the characters and issues that will make this the year that was......

Again, Happy New Year.

HAPPY NEW YEAR AND WELCOME TO THE YEAR THAT WILL ANSWER ALL OF YOUR QUESTIONS....

HAPPY NEW YEAR TO ONE AND ALL......   and, welcome to 2016 - the year that will be filled with excitement, wonder, and.....  the largest number of Presidential candidates in history!  Yet, when all is said and done, the number will shrink from the current 14 (11 Rs and 3 Ds) to 2 or 3 (maybe an Independent?).  And, then comes the "really big show" this fall.  At this writing, some 84 candidates continue in this race.  Oops.....  did I say 84?  Yup.....   Right now there are 15 Democrats seeking the party nod, 31 Republicans seeking their party designation, and 38 Independent candidates in the field.
Did I mention a partridge in a pear tree?  Of course, the media focus (and that means all of us too) is limited to 3 Dems, 11 Repubs, and.... well... who knows who all those Indies are anyhow????

So, lets see how attuned you really are......  Can you identify the following?  Well... lets make it easier....  Identify the following 10 names by party affiliation - D, R, I - and lets see how you do.
Ready?  Here goes.... no Google assists now.....

1. Willie Carter.  2.  Kerry Andrews.   3. Valma Kittington.  4. Ed Baker.    5. Scott Copeland

6. Doug Shreffler   7.  Lloyd Kelso   8. Chad Koppie.   9.  Tami Stainfield.  10. Jeb Bush

So.....  Recognize a few?  Some?  A bunch?  Just one?  Bet I can guess......  JEB BUSH!

Well....  OK... so, that one was a "gimme"... but, I didn't want you to feel like a totally uninformed member or the presidential electorate......  But, given that Jeb is still in single digits after spending millions of dollars in TV and radio ads, he might as well suffer the fate of all the others named above - political oblivion in 2016.  But, I leave that decision to the wing-nuts, tea-baggers, and the right-wing crazies who are presently pretending to be the Republican Party.....  And, should one of their own somehow become the Republican nominee, perhaps that will lead to the post-Labor Day field of candidates including someone who might make a race of it....  But, I get ahead of myself.

"Wonder"..... I mentioned that in my opening.  I do wonder when the Republican electorate might wake up to the possibility that they could be heading to the dustbin of American political history where they can join the Bullmoose Party, the Whig Party, and many others who, in their time, made poor political judgments and suffered the consequences.  Is it possible that the Rs will so cannibalize themselves that they give birth to a Third Party?  Or, we will see many flee a more extreme example of the reasonable, responsible, and conservative Republican Party of the 20th Century as the party takes on a more extreme and radical agenda as the "new" Republican Party in the 21st century?  Time will tell as the primary electorate begins to focus on their candidates in 2016 as it really did not do in 2015.  Will the "new" Republican party nominate one of their radical number and burn brightly for a time and then burn out like a meteor streaking through the atmosphere as it burns into a cinder and disappears?  And, can Hillary survive the present FBI review of the e-mail controversy, unite the liberal wing of the party, and use Martin O'Malley on the stump to forge party unity for yet another Democratic victory this year?  We will certainly bear witness to it all as the election unfolds throughout the year.

2016 - an exciting year in American electoral politics....  and, potentially a very historic one as well.
Could it be the election of billionaire Donald Trump and the rule of the American Oligarchs?  Or, perhaps the election of the first woman president in US history?  Or, will we all "feel the burn" with the election of an old and angry man from Vermont named Sanders?  It is really up to us....  So, hang onto your hats ladies and gentlemen....  And, as Jackie Gleason used to say.. "AND, AWAY WE GO!