Ted Cruz is another victim of a vastly faulted system.
I’m no fan of Sen. Cruz’s (R-Texas) by any means, but I do feel he should be able to run for president. It’s been clear since the doctrine of “natural born” citizenry was introduced that children of American fathers born abroad were still citizens of this country. Congress clarified the concept to include children born to American mothers in 1934.
{mosads}In fact, we’ve already had this issue come up before in presidential elections, and I’m not referring to the false allegations leveled against President Obama: Chester A. Arthur was accused of being born in Canada; Barry Goldwater was born in Arizona before it was a state; George Romney was born in Mexico to American parents; and John McCain was born in the Panama Canal region. All were eligible to run for president, and so is Cruz, who has never had to apply for citizenship since he is, in point of fact, a natural born American.
But, in a sense, the entire faux controversy created by Donald Trump outlines an even greater fallacy: that our Constitution is somehow an ideal document, imbued with a great wisdom of sorts that emerged from brilliant compromises. Unfortunately, that’s just not at all the case.
It’s true that our government has been a model for many that have come after it, with varying success, and that our interpretation of republicanism set a standard for the world at the time. But it’s equally true that our Constitution is tremendously flawed and that, were we to create a new one from scratch, it would largely differ from the one written in 1787.
The Constitution, of course, has had to be amended twenty-seven times, though we can truly count the first ten – the Bill of Rights – as part of the original bargain. In its initial incarnation, only white, land-owning men, twenty-one and over, could vote. There was no direct election for presidents or senators. In fact, we’re still burdened with an Electoral College system that truly makes no sense in this day and age and can occasionally result in the likes of George W. Bush becoming president.
Also, originally, a black person was not really a person, but only three-fifths of a person. This was not only extremely degrading, but gave the South unequal representation for many years, making it more difficult to root-out slavery and resulting in the Civil War.
Native Americans didn’t fare much better, receiving pretty much no protection from a government that would continue to steal their lands and abuse their peoples.
Now, of course, many of the errors of this inherently imperfect document have since been changed, but a considerable number of misguided constructs still plague us. The Senate is one. Truth be told, the Senate is a poor representative body: it makes no sense whatsoever that Wyoming and California both get two senators when California has about seventy times the population of the other.
And that’s not all: the powers of the federal government are often unnecessarily limited to issues that cross over state lines; there is nothing in the Constitution to address bribery disguised as lobbying; there is no clear system for the outlining of congressional districts, allowing gerrymandering to ensue; and the two-term limitation on the presidency (added in 1951 by the 22nd Amendment ) is both anti-democratic and unnecessary.
Of course, some will argue that the beauty of the Constitution lies in its ability to be altered – that it can adapt. But this is also predominantly false: the truth is that it’s incredibly difficult to produce an amendment, since the Constitution requires approval from the House, the Senate, and three-quarters of the states. In fact, even such an obvious amendment as women’s suffrage essentially came down to one Tennessee legislator (Edward Burn) who had to receive guidance from his mother in order to break a tie and vote for ratification. If he hadn’t, who knows how long it would’ve been until women had the right to vote. It’s a terribly cumbersome process and, no, not in a good way.
Other changes to the Constitution have had to take place through the courts and their interpretation of it. But these interpretations can vary, and jurists such as Antonin Scalia have promoted stricter adherence to the original texts that would leave us in a position wherein progress on social issues would become ridiculously strained.
Yes, Ted Cruz can run for president. But why even have the “natural born” provision at all? It’s truly against all that we stand for. Why not allow anyone who wants to run for president to do so and let the American people decide? And, while we’re at it, why not make a new and better Constitution? We can start by addressing campaign financing and the Second Amendment.
Rosenfeld is a educator and historian who has done work for Charles Scribner’s, MacMillan, and newsweek.com.