I did not save the video but there is also the article of his college professor that he was of the same mind of Scalia. — the constitution was not a living document as the progressives claim but should be taken as it was written Folks can’t claim he’s a concervative if he takes the most liberal view on his own eligibility.
Why don’t you do your own research? Material IS available on BING enter view was done pre-senate election in Texas
A simple, I did not save the video would have sufficed.
So far I have found the following bits of concrete evidence of Cruz's position and many other relevant materials at Harvard Law Professor Ed Berry's Blog
Cruz’s contrary linguistic interpretation of “natural born” rests on two sorts of sources.
First, he cites to dictionaries about the meaning of “natural born” that discuss lay understandings and were written more than a century after the adoption of the Constitution. See Cruz Brief at 21 n.3. These cannot reliably tell us what the Framers meant when using the term in a legal sense back in 1787.
Second, Cruz cites various legal dictionaries closer to the Constitutional Framing that all equate being “born within the dominions” of the nation with “allegiance” or “ligeance” to the nation.
These dictionaries prove precisely the opposite of his point: that at common law, allegiance or ligeance was equated with the place of birth. Indeed, even current dictionaries define “ligeance” to mean in Britain “the jurisdiction or territory of a liege lord or of a sovereign”,
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ligeance, and to mean at law “the territory subject to a sovereign or liege lord.” http://www.dictionary.com/browse/ligeance.
Moreover, even Cruz’s own citations to Black’s Law Dictionary note that it consistently defined “natural born” as “born within the dominions” until 1990, when Cruz says it “defin[ed] ‘natural born citizen’ for the first time to include ‘those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.’” See Cruz Brief at 21 n.4 (emphasis added).
Give Us Liberty Ted Cruz defines Natural Born Citizen in 2012
In March of 2015, I wrote about a Republican Party official from Texas who heard Ted Cruz state face-to-face, that neither he nor Barack Obama are eligible for the Oval Office. The name of the witness remains protected still today, due to concerns over vicious backlashes against his family from blind Cruz loyalists.
Interviewer: “Hello Mr. Cruz, it's a pleasure to meet you. My name is (redacted). I am a (redacted) County GOP Precinct Chair and you have my support and vote. I have one question for you if I may?”
Cruz: “Sure, go ahead.”
Interviewer: “What is your understanding of how one becomes a natural born Citizen?”
Cruz: “Two citizen parents and born on the soil.”
Interviewer: “Not exactly, but as I don't have enough time to fully explain how one does become an natural born Citizen, based on your understanding, would you agree that Barack Obama is ineligible to be POTUS?”
Cruz: “I would agree.”
Interviewer: “So when we get you elected, will you expose him for the usurping fraud he is?”
Cruz: “No, my main focus will be on repealing Obamacare.”
Interviewer: “But Mr. Cruz, if he is exposed as the usurping fraud he is, everything he has done will become null and void. Everything!”
Interviewer: “At that point, Cruz reiterated his main concern, so it was obvious the conversation was over as far as Cruz was concerned. I thanked him for his time and wished him success in the runoff.”
People have written asking about this witness numerous times since. The above dialogue is held by North American Law Center in the form of a sworn affidavit. The witness is willing to go public only when Texas, a court or congress has opened an investigation on Cruz lies and fraud. Until then, they wish to remain anonymous with good reason. I have witnessed the vicious nature of Cruz supporters myself, many times now.