I recall reading that Springfield Reformer has legal training. As the thread topic is whether or not Ted Cruz is a "natural born citizen" I would be interested in hearing Springfield Reformer's opinion of how Ted Cruz's birth circumstance differs greatly from that of Aldo Mario Bellei. (Rogers v Bellei)
I am of the opinion that being able to be stripped of citizenship (for failure to meet residency requirements) precludes someone from being a "natural born citizen." I argue that a "natural born citizen" cannot be held to any residency requirement because his citizenship is not operative on a law passed by Congress. (Citizenship act of 1934.) Natural citizens are not citizens by virtue of Congressional acts.
Care to wade in on this point Springfield Reformer?
Honestly, I would enjoy “wading in,” but I have other projects, critical in nature (for me), and I cannot divert significant resources at this time. Once you tell people you’re a lawyer, they begin to expect serious, well-reasoned analyses, and if you really can’t give it the time it deserves, you can fall well short of that expectation.
Though I have to say, I have seen some real hilarity on this thread, people trying to sort out dicta from holding, misreading holdings when they do find them, ignoring very basic principles of statutory analysis, etc. It’s why one needs a license to practice law. If there were an actual client whose interests these folks were trying to defend, they couldn’t get away with the slop I am seeing here. It would be actionable malpractice.
If I was young, and needed no sleep, I would join the fray. But alas, not so. I think you and a few of the others are doing a fine job (and yes, my initial, casual, non-rigorous perusal of Bellei finds little significant difference with the Cruz facts). The key is respect, respect for others, and respect for the rigorous challenge of getting the law right.
Peace,
SR