After testing out his latest loony Cruz-birtherism talking point on Wednesday night's Hardball, Chris Matthews appeared as a guest on the January 14 edition of MSNBC Live with Kate Snow to repeat it for a different audience. Essentially Matthews was lecturing conservatives who revere the Constitution that either they have to sacrifice their love of original intent jurisprudence or they have to just say no to a Ted Cruz presidency.
Here's the relevant transcript (h/t MRC news analysis intern Nicholas Fondacaro):
MSNBC
MSNBC Live with Kate Snow
January 14, 2016; 4:10 p.m. EasternCHRIS MATTHEWS: You know what I think? Trump has gotten Cruz under, under Cruz's skin with this natural born situation. Because, if you think about Republican concerns, especially legal people like who went to law school like Cruz did. You know, the original intent of the Founding Fathers, when they said natural born, they meant something by it.
There’s only one meaning they could have, which is are you born in this country or not? And now to come out and say, “well, yeah I was born in Canada, my father was Cuban. He was up there, we moved up there.” Maybe they emigrated up there. Somehow, out of all that, I'm an American. Explain.
Oh you say that because your mother was an American when she moved up to Canada. Well that’s an argument, I don't think it's a conclusion. People like Laurence Tribe and other lawyers out there saying natural born is what it meant. By the way, when the conservatives say the right to bear arms they don't quibble over the words, "Right to bear arms" means right to bear arms.
Natural born citizen, well what does that mean? Does it mean natural born or is it open to some other interpretation to your convenience? And I think you can't just use the Constitution as a reference manual. It's either the Constitution or it isn't. Even when it's inconvenient, you have to use it. Is he a natural born citizen, by the original intent of our Founding Fathers, yes or no?
And I think—I think a lot of conservatives better examine their conscience on this, and say "does anybody really think they meant anything but born here?"
There is much wrong with Matthews's analysis, not the least of which is that there IS an originalist case you can make that Ted Cruz is in fact constitutionally eligible. I already laid that out in a previous blog, which you can read here.
