From wiki
Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that an individual who received an automatic congressional grant of citizenship at birth, but who was born outside the United States, may lose his citizenship for failure to fulfill any reasonable residence requirements which the United States Congress may impose as a condition subsequent to that citizenship.
The appellee, Aldo Mario Bellei, was born in Italy to an Italian father and an American mother. He acquired U.S. citizenship by virtue of section 1993 of the Revised Statutes of 1874, which conferred citizenship upon any child born outside the United States of only one American parent (known as jus sanguinis). Bellei received several warnings from government officials that failure to fulfill the five-year residency requirement before age 28 could result in loss of his U.S. citizenship. In 1964, he received a letter informing him that his citizenship had been revoked under § 301(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. Bellei challenged the constitutionality of this act. The three-judge District Court held the section unconstitutional, citing Afroyim v. Rusk, and Schneider v. Rusk. The Supreme Court reversed the decision, ruling against Bellei.
This looks like a pretty good parallel to the Cruz situation, though I never fail to be surprised at what we would think is slam dunk, not being so at the USSC.
It looks like a doubt situation at this point. The class move would be for Cruz not to buck this, and, I think, throw support to Trump. He needs to sit down with Trump and make a deal. Trump needs advice. Cruz is usually good at things conservative. This would greatly help the conservative angst at Trump and make him more acceptable. Both should agree that we don’t have time to tolerate another Democrat presidency.
So Cboldt is citing this because he believes that Cruz never lived in the U.S.?