Yes, I can. I read the article carefully when it first came out. It is very noteworthy in that it cites virtually no authority for the assertions it makes and relies upon little more than unsupported assertions. But, keep in mind that this is the law review that the Great Pretender in the Oval Office was president of and,while he was President of it, failed to write any notes in it, nor pen any forewords or introductions to any issue and did not contribute to any article in it. Have you ever had to write a legal brief?
I am an economist. I have been recognized as an expert in my field by U.S. District Court for Western Virginia, and by Circuit Courts in five states, and have adapted my testimony to statutory and case law, and to instructions from the judge.
By that law review citing ‘no authority,” you mean other than Blackstone, Storey, the British Nationality Act of 1730 developing English law on citizenship, the Naturalization Act of 1790 passed by the First Congress of the United States.
I am surprised the authors of that piece did not cite the following Supreme Court case:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/401/815/case.html
In this case the Court authoritatively ruled that there are only two categories of citizenship: (1) natural born and (2) naturalized. While the 14th Amendment grants citizenship by place of birth, the Congress had from the beginning exercised the authority to defined each of natural born and naturalized citizenship, and has been doing so ever since (except that with the 14th Amendment, the Congress has to respect that person born here subject to our laws are natural born citizens).
In particular, the Congress stipulates certain conditions for a person born overseas of American parents to be an natural born citizen. The Congress is concerned with persons born overseas of mixed citizen parents, and the Congress is concerned with persons born overseas in the second and further generations. A case involving the first problem made its way to the Supreme Court and provided an opportunity for the Court to speak at length about natural born citizenship:
“a person born abroad ‘of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States’ who has met specified conditions of residence in this country. Section 301(b), however, provides that one who is a citizen at birth under § 301(a)(7) shall lose his citizenship unless, after age 14 and before age 28, he shall come to the United States and be physically present here continuously for at least five years.”
Sounds like Ted Cruz, except that Cruz clearly mets the residency requirements provided by the Congress for persons born overseas of only one U.S. citizen parent. But, the person in the case didn’t met the residency requirements.
In this long and sometimes tedious decision, the Supreme Court discusses at length differences between 14th Amendment-type citizenship (derived from place), and citizenship by lineage of persons born overseas, especially when only one of the two parents is U.S. You and I oppose dual-citizenship, and the Congress might not agree with our being against it, but at least worked in some requirement that the person establish a relationship to the U.S. so that the U.S. part of the dual citizenship is meaningful.
BTW Ted Cruz was also editor of the Harvard Law Review.