how the courts have ruled over the years. Interestingly, they have never considered the specific question as regards the eligibility of candidates to the Office of the President, so this argument cannot be resolved. No doubt, that’s the kind of argument that you must like.
............................................................
TheCourts HAVE considered the question of citizenship and therein lies the fault in your argument. I do not intend to spend any more time discussing this with you as you prefer to remain uneducated and hide behind snarky responses as if the constitution does not matter. ONE exmple: Minor vs Happersett in the Supreme Court 1875 finds that BOTH PARENTS must be American citizens. Look it up! I dare you. Therefore neither Cruz nor Rubio are eligible.
Your argument stands on an appeal to authority, namely your unquestioned expertise in Constitutional Law. I reject this.
Secondly, you cite Minor v. Happersett. This is known as cherry picking. This was one of the favorites of the birthers here on Free Republic long before you joined these little discussions. It has been debunked on many occasions, after all it was a case about women’s suffrage where the Court decided that women had no right to the vote. Great arguments are not made on that shaky foundation.
This reference captures all of the relevant Constitutional issues, court decisions, laws, and Federal regulation. It demonstrates the weakness of your position and points out a few apparent gaps in your education. Nice try, especially throwing in FULL CAPS WORDS. Those always work.
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42097.pdf