|Why not a George Washington tattoo? Everything about Ted Cruz is fake.|
But did I just understand you to suggest that state officials should feel no particular obligation to follow the court ruling if they feel it's illegitimate?
CRUZ: They should feel no obligation to agree that the court ruling is right or is consistent with the Constitution.
INSKEEP: But does that mean they can ignore?
CRUZ: They cannot ignore a direct judicial order. The parties to a case cannot ignore a direct judicial order. But it does not mean that those who are not parties to case are bound by a judicial order.
And that's what Justice Scalia was saying in his dissent, which is that the court depends upon the remainder of government trusting that it is faithfully applying the law and — and these judges and justices are disregarding their oaths.
This is — the entire premise of the decision on marriage was that in 1868, when the people of the United States ratified the 14th Amendment, that we were somehow silently and unawares striking down every marriage law across the country.
That's a preposterous notion. That is not law. That is not even dressed up as law.
Now listen, reasonable minds can disagree as a policy matter. Should gay marriage be allowed. I suspect you and I would disagree on that policy matter.
Part of the genius of our framers is they set up a system to resolve the policy matters, and that system is we can engage in the democratic process, you can make arguments in support of whatever forms of marriage you embrace and others can make other arguments and our elected officials decide.
What this decision is, and both of these decisions are, are decisions from the Washington elites that they know better than the American people, that it doesn't matter whether the American people agree with them or not, they're going to force their radical views on them, and that's — that's really unfortunate.
Well, the radical view "forced" on the American people deviates from the original language of who can be elected President in this country. Ted Cruz says you can ignore the law if you don't agree with it, and millions of Americans don't think you should be President if you were born in Canada.
If you apply an originalist viewpoint, and if you reject the fact that we have applied common sense to the interpretation of the law since the founding, you come away wondering why this man sounds like a hypocrite. Under his own standard for interpreting the Constitution, he's ineligible because he was born in Canada to an American mother and a Cuban father. This has gotten to be so convoluted that you have actual originalists trying to argue that the originalist argument doesn't apply to Ted Cruz because he's technically not one of them.
If you faithfully apply the law to the original language of the Constitution, you arrive at this conclusion, thanks to the man who actually taught Constitutional law to Ted Cruz himself:
Article II, section I, clause V of the US constitution states: “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.”
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.”
Ted Cruz has one hope, and one hope only, and that's a favorable opinion by Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The originalists on the court could not possibly agree with him because Cruz doesn't accept any modifications of the law. You couldn't make this up if you tried.