Whether Ted Cruz was or was not born in the United States? So many of the provisions of the Constitution have been ignored or interpreted out of existence, why should one more section concern us? The 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 8th Amendments that ostensibly limit federal power have been whittled down to little more than July 4th phraseology. The 9th Amendment – the most liberty-supporting words in the Constitution – has never (as in NEVER) been given serious attention by Congress, the courts, presidents, or even high school civics class teachers. The “commerce clause” of Article I, Section 8, has been interpreted by the Supreme Court (in the classic case of Wickard v. Filburn) to give Congress the power to regulate whatever it chooses (unless specifically prohibited). Congressional powers to declare war have been abandoned to the presidency ever since 1942 – when Congress formally declared war on Bulgaria, Hungary, and Romania (none of which have bothered us since!). All of this has been accomplished without changing a single word in the Constitution or Bill of Rights. Those who argue that we “need to get back to the Constitution” ignore the fact that the political power structure (i.e., the state) has been able to expand its powers within the language of the Constitution itself! Should Cruz’s birthplace ever become an issue, I suspect that the Supreme Court – the infallible authority on the meaning of inherently vague words (a power that does not appear anywhere in the Constitution!) – will tell us that the language in Article II, Section 1 reading “No person except a natural born Citizen . . . shall be eligible to the Office of President. . .” does not prevent Cruz from becoming president. “Natural born Citizen,” we may be informed, was intended to prohibit persons delivered by cesarian section. Nor can we inquire into whether Mr. Cruz came into the world via cesarian methods, as that would violate Cruz’s mother’s privacy rights.
Got it?