Michael Gaynor
Beware untrustworthy and hypocritical one-term senators running for president
By Michael Gaynor
Ann Coulter is right: "Trump is the leading GOP vote-getter tonight, among natural-born-American candidates."
An important lesson of recent history that the media has been ignoring is that United States Senators who never stood for reelection before running for president seem to think that sheer ambition is a sufficient substitute for actual fitness.
It is a problem for both Democrats and Republicans.
In 2008 all of the three major Democrat presidential hopefuls were sitting United States Senators still in their first terms – Barack Obama of Illinois, Hillary Clinton of New York and John Edwards of North Carolina.
History has shown that none of them was fit to be President and all of them were consumed by personal ambition.
After the Age of Obama, a return to perfecting America instead of trying to fundamentally transform it is obviously needed.
This time two of the top three Republican presidential hopefuls are professional politicians consumed by personal ambition – Ted Cruz of Texas and Mario Rubio of Florida.
Each of them has been running for President since he was elected to the United States Senate.
Worse, each of them sacrificed his alleged principles for the sake of personal ambition.
Rubio were elected to the Senate in 2010 as a Tea Party-supported Republican.
To win, Rubio pledged not to reward illegal immigration.
Then the rookie Senator decided to break the pledge in order to become a Senate power player and joined the Gang of Eight backing "comprehensive immigration reform.' including a path to citizenship for illegal aliens.
Apparently did not learn from the mistake of President George H.W. Bush, who pledged as a presidential candidate not to raise taxes and then cut a deal with Democrats to do exactly that.
That President Bush became a one-term President in significant part because it turned out that he could not be trusted.
Cruz has a huge trust problem too.
It's not on immigration.
It's on presidential eligibility.
Cruz is too proud and ambitious to admit he's not qualified to be President unless the Constitution is properly amended.
Cruz is a originalist on constitutional interpretation, EXCEPT when it comes to whether or not he is qualified to be President.
Cruz was born in Canada.
He was a "natural-born" Canadian citizen.
His mother was a United States citizen when he was born, but his father was not.
That's an insuperable obstacle for an orignalist.
When the Constitution was adopted, a baby's citizenship was derived from the father or place of birth.
Congress passed a law making citizenship transmittable by mothers, but the Constitution has not been amended to change the meaning of "natural born."
So Cruz is not a "natural born" United States citizen according to an originalist.
Cruz's renunciation of his Canadian citizenship did not change that.
Those who proclaim the "living Constitution" approach may believe that Cruz should be treated as a "natural born" United States citizen, but Cruz has never advocated the "living constitution" approach.
For detailed discussion see "Ted Cruz Is a US Citizen, But Not a 'Natural Born' US Citizen" (January 22, 2016) (www.webcommentary.com/php/ShowArticle.php?id=gaynorm&date=160122) and "Shocker: Trump trumps Cruz on legal status of 'natural born Citizen' under Constitution" (January 18, 2016) (www.webcommentary.com/php/ShowArticle.php?id=gaynorm&date=160118).
Ann Coulter is right: "Trump is the leading GOP vote-getter tonight, among natural-born-American candidates."
© Michael Gaynor
February 2, 2016
Ann Coulter is right: "Trump is the leading GOP vote-getter tonight, among natural-born-American candidates."
An important lesson of recent history that the media has been ignoring is that United States Senators who never stood for reelection before running for president seem to think that sheer ambition is a sufficient substitute for actual fitness.
It is a problem for both Democrats and Republicans.
In 2008 all of the three major Democrat presidential hopefuls were sitting United States Senators still in their first terms – Barack Obama of Illinois, Hillary Clinton of New York and John Edwards of North Carolina.
History has shown that none of them was fit to be President and all of them were consumed by personal ambition.
After the Age of Obama, a return to perfecting America instead of trying to fundamentally transform it is obviously needed.
This time two of the top three Republican presidential hopefuls are professional politicians consumed by personal ambition – Ted Cruz of Texas and Mario Rubio of Florida.
Each of them has been running for President since he was elected to the United States Senate.
Worse, each of them sacrificed his alleged principles for the sake of personal ambition.
Rubio were elected to the Senate in 2010 as a Tea Party-supported Republican.
To win, Rubio pledged not to reward illegal immigration.
Then the rookie Senator decided to break the pledge in order to become a Senate power player and joined the Gang of Eight backing "comprehensive immigration reform.' including a path to citizenship for illegal aliens.
Apparently did not learn from the mistake of President George H.W. Bush, who pledged as a presidential candidate not to raise taxes and then cut a deal with Democrats to do exactly that.
That President Bush became a one-term President in significant part because it turned out that he could not be trusted.
Cruz has a huge trust problem too.
It's not on immigration.
It's on presidential eligibility.
Cruz is too proud and ambitious to admit he's not qualified to be President unless the Constitution is properly amended.
Cruz is a originalist on constitutional interpretation, EXCEPT when it comes to whether or not he is qualified to be President.
Cruz was born in Canada.
He was a "natural-born" Canadian citizen.
His mother was a United States citizen when he was born, but his father was not.
That's an insuperable obstacle for an orignalist.
When the Constitution was adopted, a baby's citizenship was derived from the father or place of birth.
Congress passed a law making citizenship transmittable by mothers, but the Constitution has not been amended to change the meaning of "natural born."
So Cruz is not a "natural born" United States citizen according to an originalist.
Cruz's renunciation of his Canadian citizenship did not change that.
Those who proclaim the "living Constitution" approach may believe that Cruz should be treated as a "natural born" United States citizen, but Cruz has never advocated the "living constitution" approach.
For detailed discussion see "Ted Cruz Is a US Citizen, But Not a 'Natural Born' US Citizen" (January 22, 2016) (www.webcommentary.com/php/ShowArticle.php?id=gaynorm&date=160122) and "Shocker: Trump trumps Cruz on legal status of 'natural born Citizen' under Constitution" (January 18, 2016) (www.webcommentary.com/php/ShowArticle.php?id=gaynorm&date=160118).
Ann Coulter is right: "Trump is the leading GOP vote-getter tonight, among natural-born-American candidates."
© Michael Gaynor
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
