This argument is valid as far as politics go. It is NOT valid as far as Legality goes. The reason the guy gets away with it is because the public in general doesn't care, and neither does the court system. The reason they don't care is because they have a widespread belief that "natural born " simply means born inside our boundaries. The courts have the same mistaken belief, which I believe is the result of a long standing misinterpretation of the Wong Kim Ark ruling and the 14th amendment. It's lingered long enough to become accepted as true whether it be actually true or not. Had the issue been clearer to the courts and the public, (such as him being under the age of 35) then the legal issue would trump the political preference.
None of these people with all of their musty old foreign books and theories has ever proven the birthplace or paternity of any of our past presidents and none of them has the slightest idea how they might go about proving (to the extent required by their own impossible standards of proof) where Obama was born or the identity of his father or where Cruz was born or the identity of his father.
One of the central arguments of we "birthers" is the belief that we don't have the responsibility of proving he is not qualified. *HE* has the responsibility of proving he is. It may be argued that this was never required of other Presidential candidates, but never before did we have a presidential candidate who had gone around for years telling people he was from Kenya. Since *HE* made it an issue during his life, *HE* invited greater scrutiny upon himself.
Obama should have been required to submit a certified copy of his birth certificate showing him to have been actually born in Hawaii, (Hawaii will give birth certificates to people who were not actually born there, so that is another difficulty which should have been addressed) or he should have been excluded from the ballot in all 50 states as having not demonstrated the qualifications to run for the office of the Presidency.
The system broke down on the state level because state officials merely accepted a statement signed by Nancy Pelosi alleging he was qualified. Nancy Pelosi doesn't actually know what she is talking about, and the state officials should have required certain proof, not a signed allegation.
If Cruz runs, they can present their evidence and cite their ancient treatises and, as always, the president will be selected by the voters and their electors after they have considered all of the candidates' qualifications. And, there will be people who will bitch and moan that the people made another mistake without ever coming to terms with the reality that the people and their electors will undoubtedly make some mistakes. But, we'll get by like we always have gotten by.
I don't think it will require so much in the way of presenting ancient documents. I would simply present the 1960s Supreme court ruling regarding Aldo Mario Bellei, and argue that Ted Cruz shares exactly the same characteristics of birth as does this man who was stripped of his citizenship. I would further argue that it is ridiculous to believe that a "natural citizen" can be stripped of his citizenship short of committing treason.
If the Characteristics of your birth do not make you a "natural born citizen" then subsequent acts cannot make you one either. Ted Cruz's residency in this nation after the age of four is irrelevant to his status at birth.
*HE* did state that he was born in Hawaii and there was some documentary evidence (birth records, newspaper articles) to support his claim. If there were to be a trial of the issue in some federal court, he could testify that he was born in Hawaii "even though [he] had no way of acquiring personal knowledge about that fact." Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 804(b)(4)(A). I will ask this question again: Is there anyone who is prepared to competently testify that he/she witnessed Obama being born somewhere outside of the United States? No judge will permit Donald Trump to testify as to what he imagines or wishes to be the facts. The court will be expecting some relevant admissible evidence that Obama was not born in the United States.
Perhaps it was to avoid this kind of crazy litigation that the Founders declined to create a judicial procedure for screening and qualifying presidential candidates. (The Iranians have a Guardian Council to perform that function.) Like the removal of a president, the election of a president is a political function and not a judicial function. There is no reason to believe that some local federal judge (sitting with or without a jury) would be better than the voters and their electors at resolving questions concerning a candidate's qualifications. In two consecutive elections, the voters and their electors heard and implicitly rejected the claim that Obama is unqualified to be president.
When I asked buitterdezillion what he or she thought should be done at this point, he or she responded as follows:
"SCOTUS should hear the cases about Obama’s eligibility, subpoena all the records, and if it is found that he is not eligible he should be judicially disabled from “acting as President” as per the 20th Amendment. Joe Biden should immediately become “acting President” and be impeached for treason. Nancy Pelosi and all the other Congress-critters who knew Obama was ineligible should be arrested immediately for treason, after which impeachment hearings should be held for Joe Biden - with the one or two Senators who aren’t in jail."
So, now I'll ask you the same question. Seriously, what do you think should be done at this point?