If a person renounces their US citizenship are they still a natural born citizen of the US? They haven’t been naturalized.
What inferences would SCOTUS make about that, based on naturalization laws?
I ask this because there are many different inferences that can be made, but the only legally binding ones are the ones a COURT has actually made. That’s why we need court rulings in order to ensure that an inference is LEGALLY BINDING.
So far nobody seems willing to engage in what I see as the bigger issue here: as long as we have to go by inferences rather than by settled, clearly-stated rulings, the courts can rule whatever they want to even in the middle of an election - and by doing so they can wait until Cruz is already elected and it’s too late for conservatives to nominate somebody else, and they can rule him ineligible.
Would you have any objection with the courts giving a clear ruling on what the term “natural born citizen” means? Preferably BEFORE we put all our eggs in the Cruz basket? Why or why not?
And I will note here: I LIKE CRUZ. I HOPE HE IS ELIGIBLE. If SCOTUS is going to say he’s not, though, I would want them to do it while we still have time to nominate Sarah Palin instead (or somebody else). Hillary will challenge. SCOTUS will rule, and it will depend on John Roberts, the guy who gave us Obamacare. Are you willing for that to happen at a time when it’s too late for us to do anything about it?
And I will note here: I LIKE CRUZ. I HOPE HE IS ELIGIBLE. If SCOTUS is going to say he’s not, though, I would want them to do it while we still have time to nominate Sarah Palin instead (or somebody else).
***That’s about where I see things as well. It’s funny how the whole agreed NBC definition on FR seems to be morphing because some conservative might run for presidency. This whole whittling away at the plain meaning of the constitutional term is purely Obama’s fault.