Thoughts Aloud

There has been much discussion hereabouts of late, regarding the need for the SCOTUS to legally define the term ‘natural-born citizen’ (NBC), as used in the Constitution. Currently, there is a cloud of legal uncertainty surrounding the candidacies of both Ted Cruz and Marco Robio, because many believe they are Constitutionally ineligible for the office of POTUS. Ultimately, this could only be settled by a SCOTUS ruling, which heretofore they have deliberately avoided making. Multiple lawsuits have already been filed in multiple jurisdictions, and more are planned, challenging their eligibility, in hopes of forcing the SCOTUS to provide a definitive answer to the question.

After over 5 years of research and pontificating on the subject, I am among those convinced beyond a shadow of doubt that neither Cruz nor Rubio qualify as NBC. I have repeatedly stated that I could never vote for either, for that reason. Then, only yesterday, I averred that it was past time for the SCOTUS to do their job and make a definitive ruling on the issue, to lift the cloud of doubt dogging these and future candidates, one way or the other.

That seemed entirely reasonable to me, until Chris asked a very good and pointed question:

BTW I do need to ask. If the SCOTUS finds in favor of Cruz being a natural born citizen would someone that would disagree with the decision accept it and evaluate him on merit equally to others? If not what difference does it make?

Zing! Oh boy… hmmm… now where did I put my navel? 🙂

After a fair amount of cogitation, my answer is complicated and necessarily nuanced. Let me try to elucidate it.

First, as stated elsewhere, I now consider the Constitution a dead letter, which has no real value to the people as a compact anymore. Instead of a restraint on political power, it is now routinely misinterpreted to mean whatever the lawyers and politicians ideologically want it to mean, and the SCOTUS justices are merely well-connected lawyers.

Thus, my answer will be hypothetical and meaningless, because the dead Constitution has become little more than a quaint relic of an attempt at self-government, which ultimately failed miserably. Yet, such deliberate political misinterpretations of our once venerable Constitution, inevitably color what my reaction to yet another such erroneous ruling on the NBC issue would be.

Next, as stated elsewhere, I am increasingly embracing anarchy as a more perfect societal model. Then, to do my part in invalidating the stranglehold the Incumbrepublocrat Duopoly has on politics in America, I have no intention of voting at all this year for any Federal office. I truly no longer care who the next POTUS is; my once beloved America no longer exists. To repeat: Please don’t vote; it just encourages the bastards!

Thus, reevaluating Cruz’ qualifications and positions, because the SCOTUS decided he was eligible for POTUS, would be rather pointless for me, even if I thought their ruling settled the matter. And, that is the rub that caused Chris’ question to throw me for a loop. Would it settle the matter, once and for all, as I suggested yesterday was needed?

Alas, I am afraid the answer to that is no, it wouldn’t. Because there have been so many erroneous, politically motivated, SCOTUS rulings over the years, they no longer command any reverence or even respect, by anyone without a law degree. Those who liked Roe v Wade, cheered; those who didn’t refuse to accept it as settled law, and are still actively working to get it overturned.

Those who liked DC v Heller cheered; those who didn’t will never accept it as settled law, and are still actively passing gun control legislation that violates it. The Obamacare rulings still have partisans in an irreconcilable snit over them, and nobody thinks the issues are settled. The simple truth is that the SCOTUS is no longer, if it ever was, nine wise and impartial jurists, empowered with the solemn duty to fairly interpret the Constitution.

They are now partisan hacks, who got their jobs on the basis of ideological purity, and are not intended to be impartial. The screams and rants over Justice Robert’s first ruling on Obamacare, make that abundantly clear. Whatever his motivation and reasoning, one would have thought he had broken a solemn oath of allegiance to the Republican Party. Thus, we have come to think of their rulings as only temporary partisan opinions, which can be changed by voting in a President of the opposite ideological persuasion, who will promise to appoint SCOTUS members most likely to repair them.

Consequently, for all the reasons above, my honest answer to Chris is… no. It would not change my personal well-founded opinion of their ineligibility, or my willingness to vote for either of them, and so you are right – it would make no difference whatever. Because, what these grandee black-robed lawyers think, just does not really matter anymore. At least not to me. 😉 â—„Daveâ–º

16 Responses to “Does SCOTUS Matter?”