The Horse Sense Blog compares the nonsense in today's news with good ol' fashioned horse sense

“…I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve.… It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.” - Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775

"The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it." - George Orwell

(c) copyright 2011-2016 Doug Johnson All Rights Reserved. All site content is copyright protected and subject to penalties for infringement of copyright laws.

Sunday, January 17, 2016

John Quincy Adams Settles Cruz's Eligibility Once And For All - Pt. 1 on Ted Cruz's Candidacy

Here's the Nonsense:  The eligibility issue is settled and clear.  This is just a distraction.

Here's the Horse Sense:  Only an uninformed or foolish person would think the eligibility issue is settled.  It's not settled, but now it may be able to be put to rest once and for all.

Contrary to what many people are saying, Ted Cruz's eligibility to be president is far from settled.  In fact, those who say it is are either being deceptive and trying to get the focus off the issue because they support him and want him as the nominee, or they're just plain stupid.  Nowhere in our founding documents is the term "natural born" defined and the Supreme Court has never ruled on the definition of the term.  But the issue should be able to finally be put to rest thanks to John Quincy Adams, our 6th president.

Attorneys of all stripes are claiming they know what the founders meant by the term "natural born." But the fact is that they don't know.  They can only make a guess based on whatever case law they can find.  Some even twist things and make claims that can't be supported, such as Cruz's claims about who is natural born when, as stated above, there never has been a definition given in the Constitution nor one ruled on by the Supreme Court.  

But making a questionable claim is typical for attorneys to make to imply something they cannot prove but hope their implication will sway the court.

Some will go to the 1875 Minor v. Happersett Supreme Court ruling and say it shows us what the founders meant.

Others will use the Naturalization Act of 1790 and show that the term "citizens" is used when referring to parents of natural born children.  It is claimed that using the plural ("citizens") proves that both parents must be citizens at the child's birth to be considered natural born.

Some will remind us that the Naturalization Act of 1790 was changed in 1795 to remove the term "natural born" and try to say that proves what is in the 1790 law said doesn't matter.

Authors like Ann Coulter have written articles about what she says proves her position on the meaning of natural born. (And I might add that Coulter's piece is interesting because she raises far more legal points than most people who write about this issue do.)  

Articles have appeared everywhere from the LA Times to the Washington Post giving legal opinions about the issue.

However, none of this is law.  None of this determines the issue once and for all.  We will either need a Supreme Court ruling or an amendment to the Constitution to finally settle this issue.

Any effort to try to debate the issue into a definition we desire instead of trying to find out what the founders meant when they used the term "natural born" is an effort to subvert the Constitution.

But I would like to suggest that the issue may be determined quite simply.  Thanks not to attorneys, but to historians, we may be able to settle the meaning the founders intended. Then we simply need to put it into an amendment to the Constitution so it is defined once and for all.

So, to figure this out we first have to admit that the founders knew the answer to this question.  Wouldn't it make sense that our founders knew what they meant by the terms they used?  Of course they knew what they meant when they used the term "natural born" as a requirement for the presidency.  

And given the uniqueness of what America was and what it represented for all mankind throughout the world, wouldn't it make sense that their own children would be raised fully understanding what these things meant so that they could continue the legacy of our nation's founding fathers?  

So, given that, if the children of America's founders faced a situation where this would have been a question they certainly would have known what the Constitution meant when it said a president must be "natural born."

In a very interesting article for Newsmax, Doug Wead tells the story of John Quincy Adams' son, George Washington Adams.  And from it we learn what the Adams' understanding was of being natural born.

We all remember John Adams, our second president and one of the great American founding fathers.  His son, John Quincy Adams, also served in the presidency as our 6th president.  Both men served America well and are looked upon as great leaders of our nation.

What is not known by most people is that John Quincy Adams' son, George Washington Adams, was not eligible to run for the presidency, as his father and grandfather were able to do, because he was not considered to be natural born.  Both his father, John Quincy Adams, and his mother, Louisa Catherine Adams, were American citizens.  His father and grandfather had both been presidents.  But because his mother gave birth to him outside of the country, he was NOT considered to be a natural born citizen.

If he was not natural born, then there's no way Cruz could be considered natural born.  

Unless it is specifically defined, case law and legislation can show us some things from which we must draw conclusions that we think are accurate interpretations.  But example speaks louder than case law or legislation.  That's because example shows us how they applied it in daily life and there's no greater argument than the example lived out in people's lives.

Before you close your mind and try to argue about this, think about what history is showing us here.  John Adams was our 2nd president and a founding father of our nation.  Certainly his son, John Quincy Adams, our 6th president, would have been raised to know what they meant by natural born and whether his son, George Washington Adams, would have been considered natural born.

More than any argument from legal cases, this appears to me to be the best example we could find to determine what the founders meant by "natural born citizen."

There is no argument I can imagine to override the Adams' example in their own lives that would allow Ted Cruz to be eligible when George Washington Adams was not.

In light of this, if he truly loves America and respects the Constitution, Cruz should disqualify himself and drop out of the race.  

And even if we assume Cruz doesn't know about George Washington Adams, his unwillingness to seek the true definition of the term by having the court issue a declaratory judgment and instead, attack those who've raised the question, should cause concern about what he has to hide. Like other politicians we've seen countless times before, he claims to be open and have integrity, but his actions should set off warning signs to voters.

If Ted truly understood leadership and integrity he'd have been proactive on this issue.  When it came up he would have made a public statement saying something like:  "While I believe I am a natural born citizen and therefore eligible to be president, to put everyone's mind at ease I am going to seek a declaratory judgment from the court to settle this once and for all and put people's minds at ease.  I love America and the Constitution and I am willing to abide by the decision of the court, even if it ultimately means I would have to drop out of the race."  

That's what a leader and person of integrity does.  They are proactive and do what's right regardless of the cost to themselves.  

If he believes he's right, he should have nothing to fear.  If he prevailed with the court it would preclude anyone from bringing the issue up any longer.  But by not getting that from the court, it simply allows his attackers to continue to raise the issue and even litigate it.  And if he's the nominee, it takes credibility away from him during the general election, which is the worst time it could happen.

But when Cruz doesn't do that, he's raising questions about his integrity no matter how this comes out. To double down and try to belittle a competitor (in this case Trump) with Alinsky-like responses designed to put doubt on the questioner, not answer the question, simply reduces his credibility.  

If he has nothing to hide and is so sure, why wouldn't he be willing to seek a court judgment?  That would end the discussion once and for all.  It would eliminate it being dragged through battles in the legal system.  

In fact, just this past week the suits started with one challenging his eligibility being filed at the end of the week. (It's also interesting to note that a suit has also been brought against Rubio regarding his eligibility, too.)  And I suspect there will be more suits before this is over.

If nothing else, the decision to handle this the way Cruz has done shows an immature and foolish decision on his part.  He has nothing to lose by seeking a declaratory judgment.  To ignore it only leads to more problems.  

But then, Ted Cruz has shown immaturity and foolishness in decision making before.  And some of the other reasons we should be concerned about his candidacy will be dealt with in part 2 which has been published right after this post.