In this morning’s Abbreviated Pundit Roundup, Dr. Dworkin has included a tiny portion of a law professor’s WaPo op-ed column stating that Sen. Cruz is not eligible to be president. Because he subsequently states that “Of course Cruz is eligible, but he’s such an asshole, we’ll say he’s not,” I was troubled and thought to toss my straw into that wind. The professor’s remarks appeared to me to be especially well reasoned and supported.
For what it’s worth there are a great many discussions readily available online should anyone care to pursue them. They all essentially follow the thinking that a statute can define (that is, alter) the meaning of the Constitution.
To the professor's comments I will add a couple of points. First the language is clear, unambiguous and means precisely what it says (rules of interpretation are that only when ambiguity exists are secondary sources consulted). Second the reason for the language is as is implicit in what the professor states but less emphatically, the framers were xenophobic. This was a newly established country that had fought a war to throw off foreign authority--"the yoke of oppression"--and they didn't want foreigners coming in and taking over.
A final point is that there is a fine problem as to justiciability. The Supreme Court does not issue advisory opinions. So how the hell does an interpretation occur in the context of a case or controversy? The problem does not arise until one has a presidential nomination. Can the Court then issue a decision timely? What does the political party do in the event of an adverse decision? Oh and by the way, a certain Florida Congressman—and Harvard law grad—has stated that he will sue in the event that Cruz gets the nomination. Wanna bet he won’t??! So, Trump likely is correct on that score at least.
Given that the age of Obama is ended for practical purposes, the CONservs and moderates (there are no liberals on the Court) likely would ignore contrary arguments and simply accept the broad (and questionable) interpretation advanced by many including Professor Lawrence Tribe who says that the question is not settled but thinks that Cruz is legitimate within the Constitutional term(!). Can there be any doubt how that great “originalist” would decide absent the threat of an Obama?
Note that I do not comment on the fact that many (NOT all!) of the people who questioned Obama's legitimacy are happy to endorse Cruz.