There are 4,543 words in the original, unamended U.S. Constitution, minus the names of the signatories. Is it possible that anyone at any time could write a document of this length and not have a lapse or two of clarity? Doubtful. Even the master of certainty, Donald Trump, acknowledges that he is not quite sure what the meaning of “natural born citizen” is. Of course he uses that to his advantage as he encourages his current top opponent, Senator Ted Cruz, to get a judicial clarification on whether he is a natural born citizen, and thus qualified to be President of the United States. It’s a moot question; a standing verdict could only be determined if Cruz was elected president and someone filed suit to challenge his legitimacy. (Cruz was born in Canada but his mother is a U.S. citizen).

But “natural born citizen” was not the only term in the Constitution that is open to interpretation. You could take almost any three words of the twenty-seven–word Second Amendment: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

Scholars have argued for centuries what is the exact meaning of the Second Amendment. The fact that intelligent individuals have argued over the years about it is a pretty good indicator that there is indeed a lack of certainty about its wording. But in the current debate, virtually no one challenges the notion that the Second Amendment guarantees for Americans the right to own guns. This is not only true for the NRA or conservatives or Republicans, but also for Democrats and progressives including President Obama, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. President Obama acknowledged as much in his January 7 Town Hall meeting on guns.

Conservatives have defined the conversation in such a way that the implicit ambiguity of the Second Amendment is not up for discussion. Even gun control advocacy groups such as Everytown for Gun Safety and Stop Handgun Violence do not challenge the wording of the Amendment. What those who want stricter gun control legislation advocate is restrictions on gun ownership in the interest of public safety. This can be difficult to do because nowhere in the constitution is public safety guaranteed. The Declaration of Independence talks about what is necessary to “effect their Safety and Happiness,” but those two terms were left out of the Constitution except with regard to a Writ of Habeas Corpus.

If the issue of a “natural born citizen” becoming president was ever taken to the U.S. Supreme Court, there could be a simple straight up or straight down answer as to whether Ted Cruz would meet that requirement to be president. Yes, it would be subject to further rulings, but for the time being there would be certainty. The conditions that existed when this phrase was written in 1787 are still the same now. That cannot be said for the Second Amendment.

Our ability to talk about “common sense gun legislation” might be enhanced by progressives first seeking a “common sense clarification of the Second Amendment.” I’m not sure that the Courts could be of much help in this regard, but perhaps amending the Amendment would help by spelling out clearly who could have guns and who couldn’t, and for what purposes. This might be wishful thinking, but until we put the wording of the Second Amendment on the table, we will be very limited in what we can do to curb gun violence.

The post Second Amendment and Natural Born Citizen have something in common appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Recently the American people were treated to a moment of sweet absurdity on the floor of the United States Senate.  You know what I’m talking about.  It was that historic moment at 8:06 pm on September 24, 2013, that will live forever in our collective imagination. It was a moment that will prompt Americans in years to come to ask one another, “Where were you when . . .?”

It was a time when Americans across the continent rushed to pick up their remotes to change the channel, asking themselves, “ Is this C-SPAN or Comedy Central?”

How can any of us ever forget those precious, never-to-be-forgotten moments when Senator Ted Cruz went all squishy as he interrupted his non-filibuster filibuster of the healthcare law to read a bedtime story to his daughters? (Will any parent who witnessed Cruz’s stunt ever be able to read “Green Eggs and Ham” with a straight face again?)

In the interest of extending such delicious farce a little longer, here is a list of children’s books that might interest other politicians who might wake up one morning, look in the bathroom mirror, and think to themselves, “Gee, maybe it’s my turn to debase the serious work of the government.  Why should Teddy be allowed to play all by himself?” So, here are suggestions for some of our favorite and not-so-favorite politicians because, who knows, Teddy might have started a trend.

Mitch McConnell.  Start rehearsing “Yurtle the Turtle.”

Rand Paul. “Chicken Little” clucking “the sky is falling” will supply you with a new delusion after you’ve run out of your own.

John Boehner. Sorry, just take a glance in the mirror and then pick up “Color Me Orange.”

Paul Ryan. If being the empty vessel of the 2012 election wasn’t enough for you,  why not just remind us again and read “The Emperor’s New Clothes”?

Michele Bachmann. Just give it your best witch impression and lash into “Hansel and Gretel.”

Sarah Palin.  Please, spare us our national embarrassment. Stay home. Stand in front of your full-length mirror, gaze adoringly at yourself, and read “Gertrude McFuzz” to the image in the glass.

Elizabeth Warren. Let those financial bigwigs know that you’ll never give up just like the brave and plucky character in “Brave Irene.”

Bernie Sanders. How about castigating those who play the discrimination game and insist they sit through “The Sneetches” from first page to last?

Nancy Pelosi. Blast those Republicans out of the chamber with “Horton Hatches the Egg.”  They’ll know what you’re talking about when you get to the part where Horton declares, “I meant what I said and I said what I meant, And an elephant’s (editor’s note: donkey’s) faithful, one hundred percent!”

Barack Obama. Why should Congress have all the fun? Leave the teleprompter in the White House. Then pick up a copy of the story of the wily and intelligent dentist of “Doctor De Soto” and his nemesis, the hungry fox. (No secret code here. We all know which party wants to swallow you whole!)

The post Read me another: Children’s literature for politicians appeared first on Occasional Planet.