Most matters of indulgent personal want are simply governed by laws, policies, rules, and regulations, which cannot be ignored. For example, a man who enjoys fishing gets-up one sunny morning with a hankering to fish in a public lake a mile from where he lives, but does not have a State fishing license. He can, of course, bait his fishing line and arrogantly fish in the lake, at the expense of being caught and fined for not having a license, or he can purchase a license and fish legally. That would, of course, be the right thing to do. Then there are some privileges that just can't be bought, like an exemption from the age limit after which enlisting in the U.S. military service is impossible. There is a specific age cut-off, after which time you can't possibly buy your way into a military enlistment. Or, as another hypothetical example, how about a person who adores the legacy of General Robert E. Lee and the Confederacy and wants to become an official Son of the Confederacy, but only has relatives who fought for the North during the American Civil War. The rules governing the Sons of the Confederacy forbid such persons from gaining membership. Are you catching my drift? Many things that people want, and possibly crave, can't be purchased, because they are basically unqualified to buy them. This brings me to a question that seems to have a lot of people of the American electorate in an uproar in the early months of 2016; a question posed by the "Washington Post" that does have an answer that's as simple as the sum of 2 + 2. The question is, "Why do so many people hate Ted Cruz?" The "Washington Post" has applied some denigrating titles to Cruz, but could it be that Ted Cruz is trying to illegally buy something that he's not qualified to possess, and a lot of voters realize this salient fact? Actually, the answer that many wealthy and politically powerful Republicans don't want to hear is that Ted Cruz wants something that he is ineligible to possess, the U.S. Presidency, and, probably, over a third of the national Republican and independent electorate realize the truth of this very powerful reality.
For heaven's sake, Ted Cruz was born in Canada! Doesn't this cause the reasonable American voter to sit-up and ask himself, or herself, "what a Canadian-born dual citizen is doing representing himself as a candidate for the U.S. President for the 2016 General Election?" Well, laboring under the same misconception, I dare suppose that a person hypothetically born in Germany to a U.S. citizen mother and an Austrian father could spend most of his life in Germany and then come to the United States at the age of 36, spend a year living in Oklahoma, declare himself a natural-born citizen, and pay the required amount to become a candidate for the U.S. Presidency. Anyone, in fact, who pays the required fee for U.S Presidential candidacy may become listed as an independent candidate or one under a particular political party; the same as what George Romney did in 1968, even though he was born in Mexico. That doesn't, however, mean that the person, declared a candidate, is "really" a natural-born citizen, per Article 2, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution. I realize that Cruz grew-up in Texas, but all the while he retained dual Canadian citizenship until 2013, which is a profound Constitutional no-no.
As a matter of fact, the issue of natural-born citizenship was decided, and settled, by the honored Framers before the end of the Revolutionary War in 1781. The issue of natural-born citizenship generated no controversy among the Framers during the intense debate of the 1787 Constitutional Convention when Article 2, Section 2 was created; since most of those very wise men were also members of the 1776 Continental Congress when the meaning and understanding of the terminology became a done-deal. That was because the practical political philosophy of Emer Vattel, in his 1748 book, "Law of Nations," set-out the original principle and definition of natural-born citizenship (which was intensely studied by the Framers); that a natural-born citizen was, and is, one born in that country, or nation, to two parents who are also citizens of that country or nation. That is the distinction between ordinary U.S. citizenship, by naturalization as set forth in the U.S. Naturalization Act of 1790, and natural-born citizenship. And Vattel continued in his book to explain the reason why a President, or chief executive officer of a nation, should be a natural-born citizen. Simply put, Vattel saw the danger of allowing a person born in another country to one, or more, parents not born in the native country to assume the duties of a chief executive officer, due to international biases based on birth and parentage. Moreover, the definition of natural-born citizenship was by restated by U.S. Chief Justice Morrison Waite in the majority decision in the case of Minor v. Happersett, 66 U.S. 182 (1875), in which he affirmed the same definition that was first established by Emer Vattel; that a natural-born U.S citizen is a person born under the jurisdiction of the United States, or on U.S. soil, to U.S. citizen parents. This case was a precedent for 45 years until the 19th Amendment, in 1920, overturned it. But the 19th Amendment only overturned the main issue, the ratio decidendi, of the case, which was female voting rights. The definition of natural-born citizenship remained completely viable as an established constitutional precedent. It is, therefore, ridiculous for, supposedly, erudite constitutional scholars to say, in the 21st Century, that natural-born citizenship has never been defined by the U.S,. Supreme Court.
So, to realize that none of these foregoing historical facts have been discussed publicly by the American mainstream media, or by Ivy League academic pundits, to any extent causes great frustration in the minds of those members of the electorate who know the truth about the matter. When deliberate and intentional disregard for the highest law of the land causes important rules and mandates to be considered as moot and unimportant, someone has to stand-up with indignation and cry, "Foul!" For this reason, this essay has been penned.
The pen is only mightier than the sword when the people, who read and understand that what the writer has written has great import, unite and pursue the writer's goal. Thomas Paine wrote in 1775, "These are the times that try men's souls." in his historic publication, "Common Sense." Paine wrote what he did to unite the American colonists in a revolution against tyranny, in order for freedom and liberty to be established. Hence, the American Revolution was propelled by a desire for freedom to its fruition and victory, and from there to the Articles of Confederation, which led directly to the U.S. Constitution of 1789. Now that glorious Constitution is being denigrated by men and women who want to see tyranny replace the freedom and liberty that the U.S. Constitution was intended to perpetuate. Surely 2016 is as much a time that is trying the souls of all true Americans, as it was in 1775. Don't tread on those glorious Constitutional rules that were set-forth to be enforced and not ignored.