Friday, January 8, 2016

No, Ted, No, ABC: Professor Tribe and All Other Supposed Scholars Cannot Compete with Founding Father Madison

Earlier this week, both candidate/developer Trump and
former candidate McCain seemed to agree about Sen.
Ted Cruz's ineligibility to become president or vice president
of the United States: politically or personally motivated or
not, they are correct, much-vaunted and honored Harvard
Professor Laurence Tribe notwithstanding. He must have
conveniently forgotten Article II, Section 1., Paragraph five
of the United States Constitution, which, although short, is
quite pithy: there are three and only three requirements
to serve in our most important national position: one
regards age (35 years, the minimum), another states
14 years of residency in the USA. The one most often
debated is the sentence containing the phrase "natural born".
No man has ever been elected our president NOT
born here, not one. Prof. Larry's "broader interpretation"
of our Constitution is merely playing fast and loose with
the U.S. Constitution as currently written, seven original
articles and 27 amendments.

Is our most hallowed document which gave us this nation
no longer the highest law of the land? I say it STILL IS;
further, no act, executive order or legal consensus can
overturn any prescription/proscription therein: only Article
V's two methods, a runaway constitutional convention
(you know, like the one that formally birthed the nation,
not the Declaration of Independence, as many wrongly
suppose) OR an amendment. So far, saner heads have
prevailed and we have only enacted 17 amendments
after the Bill of Rights, the very first ten amendments.

Again, with highly colored acerbity: the Immigration
Naturalization Act of 1940  DOES NOT TRUMP
Article II, period. It is an act, which by the way does
not attempt to explicitly confer any eligibility to the
presidency on a foreign born person, naturalized citizen
or no. I challenge Tribe: How have you dared, sir??
Can you really view your intellectuosity and
scholarship as equal to President and Founder
Madison? I say a resounding NO. I see you
actually think you are a greater light than Mr.
Madison, which would cause me to fall off
my office chair with laughter if I weren't so
angry and worried.

See here, professor, no one can compete
with Madison with respect to our Constitution,
as he alone was the Founder who wrote most
of the document between May and September
in 1787 AND he also penned most of the 80+
Federalist Papers. We would not have had this
nation without about a necessary top twelve
or so of the Founders, but Madison surely
is the Founder of our Constitution just as
surely as Washington is the Father of our
Country. No rigorous scholarship can correctly
contest this.

It was patently obvious to me what the Founders
meant by "natural born"-- but  resorting to Madison
in Marbury v. Madison firmed up my understanding;
it is there, where, as you, Tribe, should know, Madison
defends a certain Mr. Smith, explaining that, yes,
around the world, parentage and/or birthplace confers
citizenship, but the firmer basis is BIRTHPLACE, and
THAT made its way into Article II. So, because the phrase
"natural born" is not attached to this polemic, you feel
entitled to some wiggle-room interpretation?

Even Alexander Hamilton, by dint of his brilliance, many
military acts of heroism, super human efforts and political
expertise, trusted by Washington, nevertheless could not
and would not have tried to bypass his constitutional ineligibility,
having been born in the Caribbean Islands. If not for Article II,
he would have had my vote over the likes of Ted Cruz,
but the law is the law, period...

Stay tuned. If this 70 year old little nobody, nothing more
than an amateur scholar, has to travel to Washington DC
with the relevant books and documents, so be it, I'll do it...
if my bankbook and my health will only permit me.

If Ted Cruz were ever to become president, flouting one
of the most singular, significant Articles in the Constitution,
what's to stop anyone from saying and acting as if the
Bill of Rights can be "broadly interpreted"? Do we need
warrants to prevent unlawful search and seizure? Hell,
it probably is OK for all these cops to fire at will, even
in the back at someone running away....

Bah and humbug to so many supposed scholars heaped
with praise. Shockley, of transistor and Nobel Laureate
fame, insisted that the gene for blue eyes is dominant,
not recessive, until shouted down by skilled biologists.
That was in the late 1960s. Later, in 1981, a "distinguished"
doctor, holder of a prestigious chair at Evanston's
Northwestern University's Medical School, claimed that
he knew HIV/Aids was strictly the plight of  homosexuals.
This opinion appeared on a front page of the Chicago
Tribune in the same year, which page I have saved
somewhere. (--Say, is THAT guy still employed
over there? Or, if having died, is he still quoted with

There are lesser lights like Professor Tribe, and absolute,
never to be repeated geniuses like President Madison.
Which would anybody in their right mind prefer to consult
on  this vital matter?


  1. Well stated Amber. Just how much of our constitution will be forgotten or IGNORED in the near future? Maybe some of it always has been. Lets keep watch. God help us.

  2. The specter of a Ted Cruz in the Oval Office is pretty frightening. It's my sincere hope that the definition of who's "natural born" won't have to be hashed out anytime soon. You may well be right, Amber, but many legal scholars believe that this issue is far from "settled". I'd be curious to know how an "originalist" like Precocious 79-year-old Child Antonin Scalia would weigh in on this.