Will Article II Spank Ted Cruz?

As soon as Gretchen and I arrived at the office on Monday, she began receiving requests for a telephone consultation. “It’s some woman claiming to represent the Ted Cruz presidential campaign,” Gretchen explained, “who says her name is Ellen White.”
“Would that by any chance be Ellen Gould White?” I asked.
“Let me check,” Gretchen answered. “Yeah, she says that’s her all right.”
“Okay,” I replied, “in that case, book her a free telephone consultation in the first available slot today.”
“That Chinese capital markets expert from the World Bank scheduled to start ten minutes from now just canceled,” she informed me. “His secretary called and said he’s ‘not feeling well enough’ to come in and meet with you today. How about I put Ms. White right through to you now?”
“Absolutely,” I directed, “go ahead.”

EGW: Hello, Tom Collins?
Tom: Oh… Hi there, Heidi.
EGW: Uh… ah… I’m sure don’t know what you’re referring to, Mr. Collins. My name is Ellen – Ellen G. White.
Tom: Of course it is. May I ask where you got my office telephone number?
EGW: I got it from Chris Wilson.
Tom: Ted’s pollster?
EGW: Yes, that’s what he does. He’s the campaign research and analytics specialist.
Tom: Interesting. I’ve never actually met him, though.
EGW: Well, uh, Chris used to be the Executive Director of the Texas Republican Party, and he told me he there’s a fellow in Texas who contacts you from time to time for… um… policy consultations, and that’s the person who gave your number to him.
Tom: Ah, yes, I think I know to whom you refer.
EGW: So, before we go to much farther here, I’ve been told that you offer initial consultations free of charge. Is that true?
Tom: Certainly. It’s part of my marketing plan.
EGW: Well, that’s a relief, because I’ve heard your rates are pretty high. Frankly, I find it very difficult to believe that people actually pay that kind of money for advice.
Tom: On the other hand, something tells me that you would have no problem believing that investment bankers feel that every single penny of their astronomical remunerations are perfectly justified.
EGW: Oh, well, I really wouldn’t know anything about that. Not being one, I have no idea what those folks get paid.
Tom: Naturally not. So, by the way, what is it you do for the Ted Cruz presidential campaign?
EGW: I… I’d rather not go into that in detail.
Tom: No?
EGW: Let’s just say I’m one of his… confidants… and let it go at that, shall we?
Tom: Sure, no problem. And now, without further ado, please, tell me, how can I help the Ted Cruz presidential campaign?
EGW: I… I… that is, certain of us here at the campaign are concerned about some… issues that have recently arisen, and well, I thought perhaps you could shed some light on them, since I’ve heard it said you’re the smartest person in Washington.
Tom: Which is a lot like being the tallest building in Baltimore.
EGW: Baltimore? Isn’t that just a perfect example of what liberal government can do to a city?
Tom: In more ways than one.
EGW: Oh, how very diplomatic of you. Are you defending what Martin O’Malley did to the place, then?
Tom: No way. I don’t trust him.
EGW: Because he’s a shifty, shady Maryland Democrat liberal?
Tom: No, because I never trust an Irishman who can’t carry a tune, and O’Malley’s singing sounds like a rabid badger turning a ram into a wether. Now, which issues are proving problematic to the Ted Cruz presidential campaign?
EGW: Well, first of all, there’s this thing with Donald Trump saying Ted’s not constitutionally qualified to be president.
Tom: You’re referring, I assume, to Article II, which states that “no person except a natural born citizen” shall be eligible to the Office of President, and the fact that there has never been a US Supreme Court ruling on what “natural born citizen of the United States” actually means?
EGW: Exactly. And it really irritates me… I mean, us… that is, me and my colleagues on Ted’s campaign staff, that John McCain is agreeing with Trump about this… this… nonsensical stuff Trump is saying.
Tom: We must bear in mind that Ted doesn’t get along with John McCain all that well.
EGW: McCain started it!
Tom: Be that as it may, McCain took the precaution of convincing the Senate to pass a resolution declaring him a “natural born US citizen” when he ran for President, just to make sure the fact that he was born in the Panama Canal Zone couldn’t be used to disqualify him from office under Article II. But Ted Cruz hasn’t done anything like that. So, apparently, McCain feels justified in observing that Cruz, having been born in Canada, may not be eligible for the United States presidency and that the question should be examined.
EGW: McCain’s not even running for President this time! What’s it to him, anyway?
Tom: McCain probably just doesn’t like Ted Cruz very much, and he’s certainly not alone in that. I’m sure you must be aware of how, in only three years, Ted has managed to alienate nearly other member of United States Senate?
EGW: If they don’t like Ted, that’s their problem, not his!
Tom: Maybe so, but there are plenty of people who could testify that it’s not a very good idea to tick off John McCain. Furthermore, wouldn’t you agree that Ted’s dismissive reaction to Trump’s remarks only served to make Trump look more serious and while lending Ted a very frivolous air?
EGW: You mean, when he tweeted out the theme to “Happy Days” and made references to “jumping the shark” after Trump shot his big fat mouth off about Ted being born in Canada?
Tom: That’s what I’m referring to, yes. The idea should be for Ted to respond in a manner that makes him look mature and presidential while simultaneously casting Trump as an adolescent, air-headed buffoon – not the other way around. Therefore, in that regard, my first suggestion would be to subject any future attacks from Donald Trump to extensive review with Ted’s strategy team before allowing him to mount a counter-offensive.
EGW: But… but… that’s what they… I mean, what we did!
Tom: And the team came up with referencing The Fonz?
EGW: Uh… yeah… The Fonz, the shark, the whole thing.  It seemed like a good idea at the time, really.
Tom: I see.
EGW: Okay, forget about that. Tell me, what’s your take on the constitutionally issue itself?
Tom: As you know, I am not any kind of lawyer, much less a constitutional lawyer, but it is nevertheless generally agreed that there are three major schools of thought with respect to interpretation of the United States Constitution. The first one is hermeneutic, and maintains that the Constitution means what its words say. Only in cases where the meaning is not plain, should the historical context be consulted. The second is the concept of the Constitution as a “living document,” wherein the fundamental values expressed there are subject to extensive interpretation, extrapolation and interpolation, based on the current state of society, lessons of previous history, and evolving moral and ethical frameworks. And then, there is the school of thought to which Ted Cruz himself belongs –originalism, which maintains that the Constitution means only what ordinary people would have understood it to mean when it was ratified in 1788.
EWG: Well, since Ted is always right, it’s obvious which approach is the correct one.
Tom: Originalism?
EWG: Yeah – that’s the one you said Ted likes, so it’s got to be the one God intended everybody to use.
Tom: In that case, Ted’s in a bit of a pickle.
EWG: Really? How so?
Tom: Because in 1788, the phrase “natural born citizen” was generally understood to apply only to persons born literally on US soil, that is, within the boundaries of the one of the several States of the Union, or upon a sea vessel flying the United States flag; and, to persons born abroad whose fathers were United States citizens. Consequently, under an originalist interpretation of the Constitution, Ted Cruz, being born abroad in Canada of a Cuban father, would not be eligible for the office of President as stipulated in Article II.
EWG: Not eligible? Wait a minute here, I’m confused, because just yesterday Ted told the press in Iowa that there’s no question about his eligibility.
Tom: Oh yes, so he did. And under either of the other two approaches to interpreting the Constitution, he is correct, although adoption of that strategy does have two very important implications.
EWG: What implications?
Tom: First, of course, since he espouses originalism as part of his ultra-conservative philosophy, interpreting the Constitution differently to suit his own political purposes obviously brands him as a spineless, shallow, self-serving hypocrite.
EWG: Oh, my God!
Tom: Actually, that probably won’t be all that bad.
EWG: It won’t?
Tom: No, because the American people have come to expect politicians to be spineless, shallow, self-serving hypocrites.
EWG: They have?
Tom: The American voters are somewhat smarter than a lot of political operatives think they are, ma’am. He – or she – as the case may be, probably doesn’t know how the federal government finances deficit spending, what cloture is, or why cyber-warfare capability is essential to win asymmetric conflicts, but they do realize that all politicians need to be spineless, shallow, self-serving hypocrites in order to be elected.
EWG: Oh. So the voters will forgive Ted for being a spineless, shallow, self-serving hypocrite?
Tom: Sure. Much more damaging will be the realization among conservative rank-and-file Republican voters that Ted Cruz was born in Canada. Not being the most highly informed bunch to begin with, the majority of them didn’t know that until Trump started mouthing off about it. That’s most likely the primary reason Trump brought the Article II eligibility issue up in the first place – as a way to make sure that Republican primary and caucus voters all know that not only was Ted Cruz born in Canada, he was also a Canadian citizen. And, of course, here we see him vigorously denying that he ever held a Canadian passport, and having to remind everyone that he has duly renounced his Canadian citizenship in order to run for President of the United States.
EWG: So Trump thinks he can do some damage with that strategy, huh?
Tom: Trump knows he can – every time the words “Canada” or “Canadian” get mentioned in the same sentence as “Ted Cruz,” it’s another grain of sand in the wind, slowly but surely eroding the pedestal upon which the Cruz candidacy stands.
EWG: That’s mighty… poetic of you, Mr. Collins.
Tom: I’ll take that as a compliment. But the really radioactive fallout from Ted adopting a constitutional interpretation paradigm that renders him eligible to be President under Article II won’t be that it proves he’s a spineless, shallow, self-serving hypocrite, or that discussing it raises his xenophobic reaction index. No, what he’s really got to worry about is that, under such interpretations of Article II, there’s no difference between Canada and Kenya. They’re both foreign countries. And there’s no difference between Ted’s mother and Barack Obama’s mother – they were both American citizens. So the real problem Ted is going to have will be with those Republican voters who realize that the same interpretation of “natural born citizen” which makes Ted eligible to run for President also legitimizes Barack Obama’s eligibility, too; even if, as they have been ranting and raving for at least the last seven years, Obama popped out between his mother’s creamy white Midwestern Caucasian thighs under the thatched roof of a hut in Kenya instead of at the Kapiolani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii.
EWG: You mean, that in order for the Birthers to support Ted Cruz, will have to admit they were wrong about Barack Hussein Obama?
Tom: Well, I don’t think the typical Birther has the type of personality that would allow them to admit they were wrong about anything, much less a cause they have been jumping up and down screaming about since the Democrats nominated a mulatto with a Muslim middle name and a hopelessly alcoholic African father in the first place.
EWG: But a whole lot of Republicans are Birthers! Ted can’t afford to lose all those votes, especially during the primaries! What can he do?
Tom: Okay, to start with, I assume you have got him to agree never to mention Canada or Article II eligibility unless someone else – specifically, a journalist interviewing him or one of his opponents during a debate – mentions it. Otherwise, he should act as if all the issues have been completely settled and require no further discussion.
EWG: Well, uh… I’ll have to check on whether he’s been advised to do that. Sounds like a good idea, though.
Tom: Trust me, it is. But, given his predicament, it’s inevitable that he will have to respond to jibes and questions about those topics. So when that becomes necessary, I recommend that he obfuscate by drawing distinctions without a difference.
EWG: Um… could you… explain that, please?
Tom: Certainly. With respect to Article II eligibility, there is, in reality, no difference between being born of a US citizen mother in Canada and being born of a US citizen mother in Kenya. But Ted should cite as many distinctions between the two as possible, voicing all of them as if they were differences that have a material bearing on it.
EWG: Ah… well… uh… I’m not exactly sure I follow you. Could you provide some… examples?
Tom: I was just about to do that, actually. Ted should respond with remarks that point out Canada is a staunch military ally of the United States, while Kenya isn’t. He should observe that Canada is right next the United States, and shares thousands of miles of borders with it, while Kenya is all the way on the other side of the world. He should remind everyone that US – Canada trade amounts to billions annually, while Kenya’s trade with the United States hardly amounts to a hill of coffee beans. He should point out that the first language of Canada is English, and the second is French, while the first language of Kenya is Swahili and the second is English. He should declare that while the Canadians have a reputation for extreme politeness, the Kenyans have a reputation for inventing the Mau Maus. He should proclaim that while Canada has a fine, honest and scrupulous representative democracy, Kenya’s government is a sham, rife with nepotism and crippled by rampant corruption.
EWG: Okay, now I get it. But how’s that supposed to work?
Tom: Simple – when Ted responds like that, whoever it was that brought up him and Canada versus Obama and Kenya will, at best, be forced to complain that “Senator Cruz hasn’t answered the question,” or “that’s not relevant,” or something lame like that, because it’s impossible to argue effectively against someone who responds to your questions using distinctions without a difference. Furthermore, most voters simply aren’t intelligent or sophisticated enough to recognize the fallacy of distinction without a difference. And the Birthers, who already want to believe that something must exist to justify Obama being a Kenyan Muslim who never should have been in the White House but need to think they have heard some explanation of why the same rules don’t apply to Ted Cruz will lap that stuff up. I guarantee they will memorize it and spout it off at anyone who dares to suggest that if Obama was never legitimately and legally eligible to be President, then Ted Cruz must also fail the same test.
EWG: Hmm… sounds like that might work pretty well.
Tom: Anything else bothering you?
EWG: Well, there’s this spanking thing.
Tom: You mean, when Ted was speaking at a rally about Hillary Clinton, accusing her of lying about what happened in Benghazi, and he made that comment about how he spanks his five-year-old daughter when she lies?
EWG: Yeah – and so the voters should give Hillary a good spanking for her lies. We thought that was a pretty clever line, but the liberal-dominated press twisted it all around, naturally, until now it’s a problem.
Tom: So, Ted wasn’t just engaging in rhetoric there? He does, in fact, spank his little daughter?


EWG: You bet he does! She lies – she gets a good spanking! That’s the kind of tough love America needs!
Tom: He… picks her up, this five-year-old daughter of his…
EWG: Yeah, so what?
Tom: And he turns her over his knee, I suppose?
EWG: Of course! How else would he do it?
Tom: Then he pulls up her little dress…
EWG: Uh-huh, sure.
Tom: And pulls down her little panties…
EWG: Bare bottom, you bet! This is genuine conservative Republican parenting we’re talking about!
Tom: And then… Smack! Smack! Smack! Smack on that tiny fabulist’s soft, smooth, supple young buttocks… Smack! Smack! Smack! Smack! Smack until it’s red and quivering, tensed in anguished anticipation of the next…
EWG: It think that’s quite enough, Mr. Collins!
Tom: Teaches that diminutive prevaricator a lesson, does he?
EWG: Spare the rod and spoil the child, the Bible says!
Tom: Actually, that’s not in the Bible.
EWG: It’s not? Well, it should be!
Tom: So say most pious Christians who hear that it is not there. He uses a rod?
EWG: That’s just a figure of speech, Mr. Collins!
Tom: Okay. Sure. Just checking. Moving right along then, may I ask what kind of lies Ted Cruz spanks his daughter for telling?
EWG: Oh, well, the kind of lies conservative Republicans usually spank their children for telling – that the global warming hoax is real, for instance.
Tom: Global warming hoax?
EWG: Yeah. Or that poor people aren’t that way because they’re too lazy to work, or that people collecting unemployment deserve to get free money, or that rich people should pay higher taxes than everybody else, or that all Muslims aren’t terrorists, or that we don’t need a wall to keep the Mexicans out, or that it’s okay for a kid to have two mommies or two daddies instead of one of each like the Lord Almighty intended – you know, stuff like that.
Tom: Gee, I must say, it sounds like those kids are rather precocious, running around telling those sorts of lies.
EWG: Well, maybe not in so many words, actually.
Tom: Not… explicitly, you mean?
EWG: No, it’s more or less like, if they get caught expressing any kind of liberal-influenced, socialist-slanted, community-activist, lesbian-gay inspired ideas, then they get it beat out of them right away.
Tom: An ounce of prevention, as they say, is worth a pound of cure.
EWG: Amen to that.
Tom: So this spanking Ted Cruz suggested that the voters give Hillary Clinton – do you think Ted was talking about giving it to her for making up fibs about Benghazi in particular, or for expressing liberal-influenced, socialist-slanted, community-activist, lesbian-gay inspired ideas in general?
EWG: Good question. I’m inclined to believe he was just referring to her Benghazi lies, but now that you mention it, she does deserve a good spanking for that other stuff, too, because come to think of it, she’s absolutely full of beeswax!
Tom: You think maybe Ted… fantasizes about… spanking Hillary Clinton?
EWG: Oh, my God! You mean… personally spanking her? I certainly hope not!
Tom: So you’re fairly sure he’s being… metaphorical, at least about spanking Hillary?
EWG: What to you mean, “at least about spanking Hillary?”
Tom: Well, there’s obviously nothing metaphorical about him spanking his daughter.
EWG: No, he actually does spank his daughter, nice and hard, whenever she deserves it. He’s her father and he has a right to spank her if he wants to. After all, it hurts him more than it hurts her. My question is, how should he handle it when… okay, let’s say he’s not going to go around talking about doing it anymore. Let’s say he’s not going to mention it any more – same idea, you know, he’s going to act as if the spanking issue has been completely settled and requires no further discussion.
Tom: Good thinking, Ms… White. Yes, that’s what he should do, generally.
EWG: Right. But what should he say when a journalist or debate opponent brings up the spanking issue?
Tom: In that case, I think you’ve already hit the nail on the head; or perhaps I should say, smacked the kid on the hiney. Ted should say that he’s his daughter’s father and therefore he can spank her whenever he wants to; and if they bring up Hillary, he should laugh and ask them if they know what a metaphor is, so they appear both stupid and ignorant as well as petty and silly for asking about it in the first place.
EWG: Huh. Not bad. I’ll pass that along to him.
Tom: Do so with my compliments. Anything else I can help you with today?
EWG: Yes! How can Ted Cruz defeat Donald Trump?
Tom: By being less of a blithering bat-spit crazy wacko nut case.
EWG: You mean, by being less of a blithering bat-spit crazy wacko nut case than Donald Trump, right?
Tom: Um… sure… of course, that’s exactly what I meant. Now see if you can get him to do it.
EWG: Okay, I’ll try, but I’m sure you know, it’s not going to be easy.
Tom: Nothing worth doing ever is.
EWG: Well, thanks for everything then, Mr. Collins.
Tom: You’re very welcome. And tell Ted I wish him all the luck he deserves.
EWG: I’ll… um… yeah, I’ll do that. Goodbye.