Let Me See The Birth Certificate

Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) is rumored to be announcing his candidacy for the Republican nomination for president this Monday. When I first heard Senator Cruz was going to run for president, I turned into a member of the “birther” movement. You know the ones? The people who demand to see President Obama’s birth certificate, not believing he was born in America?

Well, as soon as I heard Senator Cruz was going to run, all I could say was, “But Senator Cruz can’t even run for president! He’s a Canadian! He was born in Canada! I want to see the birth certificate!”

I can report to you now that I have seen the birth certificate, I have looked at the facts, and I am here to tell you that Senator Cruz can indeed run for president.

Good news for the Tea Party. Not great news for me as a person, but I digress.

The confusion comes from the “natural born citizen” clause of the Constitution. According to the Constitution, “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.”

At first glance, Senator Cruz, born in Calgary, Canada to a mother who was a United States citizen, and a father who was not, doesn’t seem like he would beeligible for the office. The clause of the Constitution says “natural born citizen” so wouldn’t that mean a person born in the United States?

Turns out, no, it would not. At the time of the scandal around President Obama’s place of birth (spoiler alert: it’s Hawaii, which is far away, but still part of the United States) the Congressional Research Service wrote a fifty page report detailing exactly who was a natural born citizen.

Oddly, it wasn’t President Obama but Senator John McCain (R-AZ) who was the subject of the inquiry, as he was born not in America, but in the Panama Canal Zone tocitizen parents.

I’ll spare you the fifty pages of the CRS report, and just tell you that according to Congress, a “natural born citizen” is someone who was born in the United States, even if they are born to non-citizen parents, or someone who was born abroad to citizen parents. It is this second loophole that Senator Cruz fits into. The vast majority of legal though and scholarship on the issue does say that Senator Cruz iseligible to run for president.

So there you go! Senator Cruz should have no legal issues when he runs for president. His father who fought with Fidel Castro…well that socialist connection might be harder to explain to his loyal Tea Party fan base.

Hyde Your Amendments

There has been gridlock around the anti-human trafficking bill in the Senate, and I promise that is the last traffic-based pun I will make at the expense of human trafficking.

The debate about the anti-human trafficking bill came to a standstill today when the Senate failed to achieve the necessary 60-vote cloture to end debate on the bill, and put the bill up for the real vote. Unlike the cloture votes of years passed, this one was tanked by Democrats, not Republicans.

Why do Democrats want to prevent an anti-human trafficking bill? Why does anyone want to prevent an anti-human trafficking bill? Human trafficking is widely regarded as a terrible thing, and I would guess every member of the Senate is opposed to it on moral grounds alone, to say nothing of the illegal activities it facilitates. Why would the Democrats prevent a bill that would create a fund for victims of human trafficking and tools for law enforcement officials to fight human trafficking?

The answer is, surprisingly, abortion. Democrats discovered last week that included in the human trafficking bill is an extension of an amendment called the Hyde Amendment, which prevents federal funds from being used for abortion except in cases of rape, incest and a threat to the life of the mother. This bill would expand that amendment, and prevent any funds, Federal or otherwise, from being used for abortion, except in cases of rape, incest and threat to the life of the mother.

(An editorial aside, I don’t love the phrase “threat to the life of the mother” because with an average of 650 women in the US dying in childbirth every year, a maternal mortality rate that puts us below Belgium, Bosina, and Kuwait, most pregnancies in this country could turn into a “threat to the life of the mother.” Pregnancy is dangerous, and a woman should be allowed to decide for herself if she wants to go through it or not.)

To prevent that amendment from being passed, Democrats filibustered the bill, or prevented it from obtaining 60 cloture votes. Senator McConnell (R-KY) held the cloture vote twice, and Democrats ensured that it failed both times.

What complicates this story is that Senator McConnell is refusing to hold a confirmation vote for Loretta Lynch, President Obama’s appointee for attorney general, until the human trafficking bill is passed. Democrats, who hope to see a confirmation for Lynch as soon as possible, say that they will pass the bill as soon as the ban on funding is removed. Republicans counter by saying that the Democrats should be embarrassed that they are filibustering the bill, and should just vote to end debate on the bill so it can move on to a final vote. We’ve seen how well these groups work together in the past, so it’s likely that we will not see the bill passed, let alone Loretta Lynch’s confirmation, for awhile.

The Most Secure Shutdown

It’s been awhile since I’ve updated the blog, but it’s also been awhile since Congress was on the brink of a shutdown of necessary government services, so I guess we both just had other things on our plates. Now, after over a year since the last government shutdown, Congress is once again flirting with the possibility of ending funding to a government agency. This time, it’s the Department of Homeland Security, and the Republicans are in charge. What a difference a year makes!

The Department of Homeland Security was created in the aftermath in the 9/11 attacks, and oversees border patrol, emergency responses, cybersecurity, andother industries that protect our nation from foreign threats. Their funding is running out, though Congress did pass a one week extensionlast Friday to fund the department for another week. But once this funding expires on March 6^th, another bill will have to be passed to continue to keep our country safe.

Why has this become such a contentious issue? On the surface, it seems like an issue that would not be subject to partisan politics. In this case, the debate comes down to immigration. Likely because the Department of Homeland Security oversees border patrol, Republicans are trying to attach a clause to a funding bill eliminating some of the executive orders that President Obama has signed to protect undocumented immigrants. The Democrats will only vote on a “clean” funding bill, or a bill without extra political amendments.

Last Friday, the House rejected a funding measure that would keep the Department funded for three weeks, in a move that signaled to many people that SpeakerBoehner (R-OH) does not have control over his party. Today, the Senate Democrats blocked a request by the Republicans to go toconference, or convene a meeting between the House and the Senate to reconcile the differences between the bills.

The Senate has passed a bill that would keep the DHS funded through September, and some say that it would pass in the House with bipartisan support. The chances of this being brought into the House are minimal, as Speaker Boehner failed to even pass a three-week funding bill.

This next week will be full of Congressional scrambling, archaic procedural rules, and who knows, maybe even a coup against Speaker Boehner. Whatever happens, you know I’ll be here, likely with some microwave popcorn, watching it all unfold.