It may not matter whether Ted Cruz wins Iowa
Ted Cruz’s eligibility to run for president initially looked strong, then probable but uncertain. Upon deeper examination it is surprisingly weak. For someone who claims to be a strict constitutionalist one would think Ted Cruz would not attempt to mince the words of the constitution.
Petrie Professor of Law at Harvard Law School Einer Elhauge wrote a rather stinging piece at Salon.com titled “Ted Cruz is not eligible to run for president: A Harvard Law professor close-reads the Constitution” that is rather convincing. He later appeared on The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell where he explained why in fact Ted Cruz is not eligible to run for President of the United States.
The professor wrote:
The constitutional text provides that a president, unlike other elected officials, must be a “natural born citizen.” This language could not mean anyone born a citizen or else the text would have simply stated “born citizen.” The word “natural” is a limiting qualifier that indicates only some persons who are born citizens qualify. Moreover, when the Constitution was enacted, the word “natural” meant something not created by statute, as with natural rights or natural law, which instead were part of the common law.
He further writes the following:
In short, both textualism and originalism cut strongly against Cruz being a natural-born citizen. Some argue that living theories of constitutional interpretation cut in favor of Cruz, but even living theories start with text and history, and it is not clear why the principle animating the clause would merit a different conclusion in current times.
It is ironic that one of the idols of the birthers who would love to become president is in effect ineligible to be president. Yet, President Obama who was born of an American mother and on American soil drew their suspicion. Poetic justice is a ….