Sen. Ted Cruz has found himself an unlikely ally in the ongoing birther debate in Cass Sunstein, a former White House official, who wrote in a Bloomberg View op-ed Tuesday, “On the merits, I agree with Cruz.”
His op-ed comes as Donald Trump and other Republicans — and even some legal experts — have raised concerns that because Cruz was born in Canada, he does not meet the “natural born citizen” requirement to run for president under the Constitution.
Sunstein — a legal scholar who was the administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Obama administration — laid out the basic gist of the debate: whether “natural born citizens” means Americans who were citizens at birth (and thus did not have to go through a naturalization process) or means only Americans who were born in the United States.
Cruz was born to an American mother in Canada in 1970, which made him automatically a U.S. citizen at his birth.
Sunstein also was skeptical of Trump’s suggestion that Cruz seek legal clarification in court.
“For technical reasons, no federal court is likely to rule against Cruz,” Sunstein wrote, pointing to issues in standing and that courts will likely see the issue as a “political question” that should be resolved in the political process.
Though he sided with Cruz, Sunstein suggested that it was still an issue worth examining, quoting former Justice Scalia law clerk Michael Ramsey, who said, “It’s a mystery to me why anyone thinks it’s an easy question.”
LOL…trying to give Cruz the kiss of death with the Teatrolls…
should Cass ever be nominated to a federal bench I’m sure Cruz will happily return the support by vigorously fighting for his…
filibuster.
Trump isn’t the only one who can rile up the rubes…
You mean like who will be the next President of the United States by counting all the ballots and letting the natural process play itself out? No, no, no…Heavens to Betsy, the Supreme Court would never allow itself to get involved in anything that helped resolve a political matter regarding process. I’m pretty sure about that too… (/s)
TPM:
While I take great pleasure - to an almost unreasonable extent - in watching Ted Cruz hang from his own self-erected Shakespearean petard, I do find myself wondering what the point of the natural born citizen clause is in a democracy.
I mean, seriously, if we democratically elected a President who wasn’t a natural born citizen, who would do anything about it? Sure, the losing candidate would complain, but would the Supreme Court really take a case to remove a democratically president?
The only way I can see there being any repercussions is if the losing party controls enough seats in both houses of congress to successfully impeach the president and declare him or her guilty – which, if they’re Republicans and control both houses, they’re gonna do anyway.
I guess what I’m saying, In response to the Ramsey quote above, is that it’s a mystery to me why anyone still thinks it’s a relevant question.