Highly respected Constitutional law professor Mary Brigid McManamon has just stated, "Ted Cruz is not eligible to be President." Big problem— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 22, 2016
C check out Jane’s post
I'll see your one scholar and raise you four:
Respected Yale law professor Akhil Reed Amar, arguably the nation's most prominent liberal originalist scholar, argues that Cruz is a "natural born citizen." January 14, 2016
Jack M. Balkin is a respected "Knight Professor of Constitutional Law" at Yale Law School, concludes Cruz is a "natural born citizen." January 13, 2016
Respected Harvard law professor Cass Sunstein, Also concludes that Cruz is NBC. January 12, 2016
Ilya Shapiro is a respected senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute and editor-in-chief of the Cato Supreme Court Review, concludes that Cruz is NBC and made the case clear back in March 2015 *well before* Trump saw Cruz as a threat. March 23, 2015
You and I can do this all day long and all we will accomplish is arguing in circles. The point being - Neither you nor I have any idea who is right, wrong, or partially so one way or another. With 0bama, Romney, McCain, and on back to Goldwater and beyond, there are plenty of use-cases in Cruz's favor. And if we are to try and divine original intent, the *only* reference in the legislative record (NA of 1790) represents the opinion of a congress that including not only the founding fathers, but 8 of the 11 framers of the very constitution itself and they wrote a mere three years after they framed the constitution that children born outside the nation to US citizens were NBC. "Original Intent" does not get much more "Original" than that.
Fast forward to today and the bottom line is that, until a court resolves it definitively *and* specifically regarding presidential qualifications, no-one knows definitively and can only opine on the matter. Due to "judicial restraint" (google it if not familiar), no other SCOTUS ruling that may happen to mention NBC, or even lower court rulings, are applicable. Other rulings can certainly be used in arguing for or against Cruz should a SCOTUS case finally arise -- but until then, it is undecided vis-a-vis presidential eligibility.
As for me, I will take the founding fathers at their word, as expressed in the NA of 1790 which gives their clear, unambiguous declaration that they would have been OK with Cruz as a candidate. And who am I to argue with them? But apparently some folks do choose to argue with that clear statement by the founding fathers, so opinions will vary...
But good luck with your candidate!