What supersedes a Supreme Court ruling? To the best of my knowledge, only another Supreme Court ruling.

The 1875 case Minor v. Happersett said, “All children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens.…”

Thus, both parents must be citizens themselves when their child is born for that child to be a natural-born citizen. To willfully ignore the inherent difference between citizen and natural-born citizen is to hold the absurd belief that a bird is always a bluebird, a tree is always an elm tree and a horse is always a quarter-horse.

Many people fail to see the difference, willfully or not. Last month, when a caller cited the 1875 lawsuit, Rush Limbaugh insisted both held the same meaning.

Three times I wrote to the national and Maine Republican parties, asking how they will rectify the party claim to be upholders and defenders of the Constitution and rule of law while possibly simultaneously preparing to select an unqualified nominee. Replies? Nothing from Reince Priebus. Rick Bennett finally responded, stating he is not a legal authority and others are more qualified to decide.

Ted Cruz’ father did not become a citizen until 2005. Marco Rubio’s parents did not become citizens until he was 4 years old. Although both are citizens, neither are natural-born citizens.

I think they are both great senators and I like many of their policies. However, if we are to remain a nation of laws, the Republican Party must take a stand now.

This isn’t a matter of not favoring one politician over another, or of winning the election at all costs. It’s a matter of constitutional consistency — and allegiance.

Greg Paquet


Only subscribers are eligible to post comments. Please subscribe or to participate in the conversation. Here’s why.

Use the form below to reset your password. When you've submitted your account email, we will send an email with a reset code.