If 2015 was the “year of Arpaio” in the sense that his legal troubles kept this blog afloat with topical material, 2016 promises to be the year of Donald Trump and Ted Cruz with natural born citizen’s definition being all the rage.
In addition to a flurry of news articles, the first week of 2016 sees a new scholarly paper on “The Original Meaning of ‘Natural Born’” by University of Sam Diego School of Law professor Michael D. Ramsey. [Spoiler alert] Ramsey takes the affirmative position on Cruz eligibility.
Like most articles I have seen on this topic, the author makes the case for a controversy that justifies the article. Indeed Professor Ramsey leads the reader on to the point where all seems to be lost for the main thesis, and then he reverses.
Ramsey gives a little attention to how much influence Emer de Vattel had on the Framers, and whether it is appropriate as a referent for the definition of natural born citizen. He cites Vattel, but fails to mention that he is not citing Vattel, but rather a translation of Vattel, and a translation not available to the Framers to boot.
Rather than critique the article here, I’ll put my remarks in comments along with everyone else.
H/t to gorefan.