Right.
I wonder what you think about Goldberg's opinion that, if this were a matter of great significance, it would have been settled long ago.
I've heard that elsewhere as well. Is it 'unsettled' because it's minor? And if it's significant, then why still unsettled after two centuries?
Ignoring the fact that Mr. Goldberg's question on its face is just another logical fallacy, you raise two interesting questions.
Is it 'unsettled' because it's minor?
Is it minor? You be the judge. The Founders inserted that clause (after a fair amount of back and forth discussion which we are fortunate to have preserved in the public record) for a very specific reason. The wanted to ensure that the occupant of this one specific office, the President and CiC, would be as free
as possible from divided loyalties. To do that, they proffered the Natural Law concept of a "natural born Citizen" as their best possible remedy. To wit, ensuring that the person was born within the realm (jus solis) and born of parent
s that were Citizens of the realm (jus sanguinis), and not subject to the authority
of any other realm, was the solution that they implemented.
I know that some argue that it is not "fool proof," in that we have already seen a natural born Citizen President (i.e., WJC) that ascended to the office and did a great deal of destruction to this Nation, much of which owing to divided loyalties. However, that argument is another logical fallacy, it is called the Fallacy of the Perfect Solution.
(And, I must add, in my view it remains "unsettled" as a political and societal question. Legally and Constitutionally it is not "unsettled" at all.)
[Edited to add: A Barack Hussein 0baa is the perfect example of what the clause was intended to prevent. After 7+ years, do you consider it a 'minor' matter? ]
And if it's significant, then why still unsettled after two centuries?
When I think about why we are at, at this point in time, 2016, with the matter remaining "unsettled," I am reminded of a very different question. Some have asked, with all of their wisdom (and God granted inspiration, IMO) did the Founders not include Term Limits? The answer to that is that they were unable to judge two things about our population as time progressed:
1. The level of avarice, selfishness, and wickedness that the country's future population would seed. Their model was that citizen legislators would step forward as needed, to
serve for a term or two, then return to their prior lives and occupations. I personally doubt that they ever foresaw 30 to 40+ years of 'public service' being in the realm of possibility.
2. The level of indifference and distraction that would render the vast majority of the population almost deaf, dumb, and blind in matters of the government (that was supposed to be a government of WtP). The inherent form of a "Term Limit" was to be the ballot box, every two years for the Representatives of the People. A diligent and attending population would turn away the scoundrels of item 1 above.
So, what does that have to do with this topic? I believe that it was the same deficit of being able to accurately predict the future on the Founders' part, that has created this situation. Again, I believe that their implicit assumptions about our future versions of society did not include two different, but parallel forms, of the above:
1. They didn't predict that men (and women down the road) that would become leaders, of the level of stature required, within the government and society, to make themselves viable candidates for the Presidency, would ever wander so far afield that they either didn't understand the Natural Law based aspects of the eligibility clause, or would be so disingenuous to blatantly ignore it.
2. Again, an educated and informed populace would serve as the stop gap remedy to item 1. An informed and engaged populace would stop such a candidacy dead in its tracks.
So, we are where we are. In my opinion there is only a very narrow path that can be taken to get the issue to the Supremes. At this moment I don't see that there will be any movement down that path. And it goes without saying, we have no idea what the answer from the Supremes would be. (Some of us have hunches, but none of us knows.)
