In his emails to the Guardian, Tribe discussed Cruz’s own approach to constitutional issues, noting that under “the kind of judge Cruz says he admires and would appoint to the supreme court - an ‘originalist’ who claims to be bound by the historical meaning of the constitution’s terms at the time of their adoption - Cruz wouldn’t be eligible because the legal principles that prevailed in the 1780s and 90s required that someone be born on US soil to be a ‘natural born’ citizen.”
He added: “Even having two US parents wouldn’t suffice for a genuine originalist. And having just an American mother, as Cruz did, would clearly have been insufficient at a time that made patrilineal descent decisive.
“On the other hand, to the kind of judge that I admire and Cruz abhors - a ‘living constitutionalist’ who believes that the constitution’s meaning evolves with the needs of the time - Cruz would ironically be eligible because it no longer makes sense to be bound by so narrow and strict a definition.”
Tribe said: “There is no single, settled answer. And our supreme court has never addressed the issue.”
Larry Tribe is incorrect on this point.
The patrilineal thesis that Tribe is espousing was indeed the rule in 1789. It is no longer, but that is not because of any 'living constitution' bullcrap.
It is because of the 14th Amendment.
But it’s okay for illegals to come across this border and drop a kid and that is instantly an American citizen and no doubt elegible to be prez of US?
The problem with Tribe is he doesn’t seem to realize once he opens that door to reinterpretation of the Constitution, there are no boundaries. There are no checks. There is no meaning that can’t be reinterpreted. The Bill of Rights no longer means what it means. Plain language can be twisted into the very opposite of what it says.