In my last post I made a comment about the power of the President, and I would like to follow up on that with a brief lesson in Constitutional law. In my book, One Nation Under God, I include several of these short lessons including the one that follows. I am currently rewriting One Nation Under God and preparing to get it into publication again. For any of you have read the first edition of the book, I would love to hear from you about things you would like to see included in the second edition!

The Power of a President
Forget everything you’ve heard during election-year speeches. The president does not make the laws. The Constitution gives to Congress the power to make and amend laws. The president, through the vast reaches of the Executive Department, enforces the law. The courts interpret those laws as they are applied in individual circumstances, determining whether a law has been properly applied or is itself in violation of the Constitution. While the courts must wait for a legal issue to be brought before them, the president is free to consult with Congress about what laws should be passed. This is a power that has grown greatly over the years, as the political clout of the presidents has grown. But no matter how much the president promises, argues, pressures, or pleads, there is no guarantee that he can get a majority of the 100 senators and the 435 representatives in Congress to agree with him.

Last night I went to a screening of the new movie, Our Brand is Crisis, which will be in movie theaters this weekend. It’s the story of a campaign strategist hired to help an unlikable candidate win the presidential election in a South American country. There is a lot of rough language and crude sexual jokes in the movie, but I would still recommend it as a quick education in dirty politics.
​
The main character, Jane Bodine, tells a group of campaign volunteers, “Wake up! This is war. There is only one wrong in this. One Wrong – and that is losing.” From the stories and quotes that are littered throughout the movie, there has been more than one presidential candidate in the US who would agree with her. Winning is what matters – and you have to do whatever it takes to make sure you win.

There are a number of good lessons in this movie, such as pointing out how easy it is to twist the facts – or even make them up. “The ‘truth’ is what I tell the electorate to believe,” Jane says. Jane also claims that the single most important factor in voting is fear, which is probably true. If a candidate can figure out what his voters are afraid of, if he can put a name to the enemy and say “I can beat that,” he has a good chance of winning those votes. If he can’t beat the real enemy, all he has to do is create a new one and focus everyone’s attention on that.

Our Brand is Crisis is not a feel-good movie, but there is little about politics and campaigning that makes any of us feel good these days. Many people are angry, and they will simply vote against whoever is making them angry rather than for anyone or anything. Other voters will be motivated by their fear to vote for the candidate who seems best able to “win” and beat the fearsome enemy. Many others have been moved to cynicism and apathy by past candidates who claimed they would fix everything, only to go back on their word or be unable to create any real change.

So what is a voter to do? More specifically, what is a Christian voter to do?

First, don’t just listen to the campaigns and the candidates when deciding how to cast your vote. Look into the issues for yourself – from multiple viewpoints, since you can never depend on any one source to give you the whole truth. Also, consider whether a candidate can actually do what he or she says she will do. Candidates are famous for promising things they have no constitutional power to do. Our government is a republic, made up of many elected and unelected officials who have to work together to get things done, so a candidate also must have the ability to work with others.

Second, don’t be motivated by fear! Fear leads us to believe that we (our candidate or our cause) must win or the result will be disastrous. Because we must win, anything that allows us to win becomes allowable. The only “wrong” is losing. Hardly the right attitude for Christians who are called to be the salt and light of the world (Matthew 5:13-16).

Third, remember, winning isn’t everything. During the Revolutionary War, Patrick Henry famously stated, “Give me liberty, or give me death.” It was a noble sentiment, but not a Christian one. Henry believed that winning liberty was absolutely essential, and that nothing else would satisfy him. As Christians, though, we are to be like Paul who said, “I have learned the secret of being content in any and every situation, whether well fed or hungry, whether living in plenty or in want” (Philippians 4:12). The writer of Hebrews also said, “Be content with what you have, because God has said, ‘Never will I leave you; never will I forsake you’” (Hebrews 13:5).

Few political promises have been kept with absolute integrity, but there is one promise you can always depend on – “Never will I leave you, never will I forsake you.” Never – no matter who wins the next presidential election, no matter what resolutions pass or fail, no matter what. So do your homework, vote your conscience, don’t be ruled by fear, anger, or the need to win. And Trust God! Then, and only then, you can never lose.

For three days I’ve been talking about interpreting the Constitution, but my goal in writing these posts had little to do with the Constitution. I wanted to dig into a messy subject, clear away some misconceptions, and draw out an important point. Please bear with me for a few more paragraphs while I get to the heart of the matter.

Four days ago I was accused of being a bad American because I didn’t agree with a man who had strong feelings about what is wrong with America and who is to blame. He chose to divide Americans into three groups: those who were destroying our American heritage, those who were trying to protect it, and those who would stand by and do nothing (“people like you,” he said to me accusingly). I tried to respond civilly and rationally to his arguments, and I came home and did some research on his claims, but even if he turned out to be right that “natural born citizen” in the US Constitution originally meant a person born in the US to two US citizens, I couldn’t agree with him that our nation was in terrible peril because it had elected a President who had one parent who was not a US citizen.

As I watch the news, check in on social media, and talk to my friends, I can see that many people are passionate about this nation and looking for someone to blame for its problems. That includes many Christians. I hope as a writer and a teacher I can help my fellow Christians to step back, analyze the facts, think about what they believe, and then act like they really believe it – even in the sensitive area of politics and national heritage.

In my book, One Nation Under God, originally published in 2005, I set out to show the importance of separating our allegiance to our nation and our allegiance to God – and always remembering which was more important. In the next month or two, I will be rewriting that book to add current events and better explain some of the important points. Right now – before the revised book is published – you can download the entire original manuscript from my website free of charge!

In another book, Standing Firm, I show the importance of trusting God with every part of our life and seeing what is happening in our world, and in our nation, through God’s Word. I’ve just finished rewriting that book, and it will be available from Amazon.com next month.

The third book I would like to write is The End: And Why it Matters. This book will look at the big picture of God’s plan for his creation and what part we as Christians should play in that plan. I hope to have that book out next year. After all, it's only when we know where we're going that we can find a way to get there.

There is a lot of fear and uncertainty among Christians in American today as we see our culture changing and our beliefs being marginalized and ridiculed. We can look for people to blame; we can fight to bring back the good old days; or we can trust God and continue to shine his light in a dark world.

Please come back and read more next week. Right now, I’ve got to get back to writing those books!

Since I have intrigued at least a few people on the issue of natural born citizens, I want to provide you with the legal definition.

In 1904, Frederick van Dyne, the Assistant Solicitor of the US Department of State, published a textbook, Citizenship of the United States, in which he said, "There is no uniform rule of international law covering the subject of citizenship. Every nation determines for itself who shall, and who shall not, be its citizens.... By the law of the United States, citizenship depends, generally, on the place of birth; nevertheless the children of citizens, born out of the jurisdiction of the United States, are also citizens...."

Van Dyne pointed out that the Constitution, while mentioning citizenship, contained no definition of that term until the 14th Amendment was adopted in 1868. Prior to this time each state in the US applied its own law to determine citizenship, either by statute or common law (law based on previous judicial decisions rather than written statutes).

So what did the Framers and signers of the Constitution intend when they added the requirement that the President be a “natural born citizen”? Since many of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention, and almost all of the men who drafted the Constitution, were lawyers – trained in English common law – it is most likely that they intended the common law meaning of the term.

The leading commentary on English common law at the time the Constitution was drafted clearly stated that “Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England.” The parentage of the subject is immaterial. Being born in England made you an English citizen. Being born in the colonies made you an English citizen (up until the Revolution). Being born in the new United States would have made you a natural-born citizen of the United States.

It’s true that you can find different interpretations of ‘citizen’ or ‘natural-born citizen’ from the 18th century or earlier, and it’s possible that at least some of the people who wrote, signed or ratified the Constitution intended the term to have a stricter meaning. However, the standard meaning of the term at the time the Constitution was written was that anyone born in the US was a citizen of the US without regard to the nationality of one or both of his parents.

I hope that answers the question of the “strict interpretation” of the Constitution’s requirements for the President of the United States. Before I leave this issue, though, I want to add one more post on it tomorrow. I have stated that my mission as a writer “is to help Christians think about what they really believe and then to act as if they really believe it.” So come back tomorrow when I will answer the question, “What does any of this have to do with acting like a Christian?”

If you read my last blog post, you know I was recently challenged by someone I will call a “strict constructionist” – someone who thinks the US Constitution should always be interpreted the way the original authors of the Constitution intended. The particular argument I was challenged with was that the current president of the United States is not legally our president because he is not a “natural born citizen” of the United States as the framers of the Constitution intended. He was not born in the United States to two US citizens.

When asked if I agreed that “natural born citizen” meant only someone born in the United States to two US citizens, I said no. I have a few different reasons for that. The first is that we have to be very careful with the idea of strict construction because it’s very difficult to know exactly what “the Framers of the Constitution” or the “Founding Fathers” intended.

Oh, you can find books with quotes from George Washington, James Madison, and Benjamin Franklin talking about the Constitution or its principles. Some people rely on writings by John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and John Jay, even though they weren’t part of the Constitutional Convention. But no one back then wrote a “full guide to the Constitution through the eyes of the Founders.” Such a thing doesn’t exist, and it would have been very difficult to write.

The Constitutional Convention was made up of 55 men, representing only 12 of the original 13 states. (Rhode Island refused to send delegates to the convention.) After the final draft of the Constitution was prepared, 13 delegates left the convention in protest and 3 more refused to sign it. It is doubtful that any of the 39 men who did sign the Constitution whole-heartedly agreed with every provision in it, as it had only been produced after much debate and many compromises. Benjamin Franklin declared, "I confess that there are several parts of this constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them…. [T]he older I grow, the more apt I am to doubt my own judgment, and to pay more respect to the judgment of others.”

Fifty-five men debated the Constitution, 39 signed it, but it took much more debate and many more men to make the Constitution the law of the land. Every state had to consider whether or not to ratify the Constitution, and at least nine of the states had to agree to it – just as it was written – before it would take effect. None of those men could quibble with the phrases used to define and limit the powers of the three branches of government. All they could do was say “yes” or say “no, go back and try again.”

So if I’m asked if a certain phrase in the Constitution should be interpreted the way the it was originally intended, I have to ask, “Intended by whom – the person who first suggested the provision, other Founding Fathers who contributed ideas for the Constitution, the Committee of Detail that drafted the Constitution, the Committee of Style and Arrangement that redrafted it and added final changes, the 39 members of the convention who signed the document, or the hundreds of men making up the state legislatures or ratifying conventions in the 13 states who eventually approved it?” After all, each one of those people was essential to the creation of the document.

“Strict Construction” is a nice idea, but only if we approach the idea cautiously, being careful to not assume that everyone involved in writing and approving of our Constitution actually agreed on what it meant.

Tune in tomorrow for One Last Word on “Natural Born Citizen.”