Why should the President be born in the United States anyway?
by Bob Schwartz
We are asking the wrong and less interesting question about the Constitution and presidential qualification.
A lot of people are talking about Ted Cruz’s birth (the place, not the biological event). The better question is whether the requirement, however interpreted, is in our best interest.
It isn’t. There are plenty of brilliant and capable non-native American citizens who would be terrific at trying to run this country with some vision and imagination. (Though most of them are too smart to want to get involved in the thankless insanity we are now witnessing.)
We have rules, and if any rules deserve respect, the constitutional ones do. But just because it’s in the Constitution doesn’t mean it’s the best idea.
I am not suggesting that we amend the Constitution, especially not for Ted Cruz. But we should at least be talking about maybe expanding the talent pool. Because if most of the current crop of candidates is what we get when we limit ourselves to natural born Americans, we could definitely do much better.
Bob Schwartz 
It’s amazing that this question can actually be asked after Bush junior. If he was the best of America, then America is in desperate need of new talent.
Thanks for the comment. If there is a glimmer of good news in this election cycle, it’s that we won’t have a third Bush (my guess is that Jeb drops out after New Hampshire and Iowa, assuming a likely very poor showing there). As for talent, old and creaky institutions (governments, parties, businesses, etc.) often get less effective over time. And as they do, the insiders discourage genuine new talent and ideas for fear that these will replace the old guard.