You are just plain deluded and I could care less what law you drag up. Laws do not amend the Constitution.
Holding my tongue until
after Iowa-New Hampshire
The law is there for you to read. Look it up yourself. Cruz is a nbc.
To say otherwise is leftwing silliness.
I'll ask the question I asked above to another, which has so far gone unanswered. The U.S. Supreme Court, in its landmark case on citizenship and the Constitution, stated:
"Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization. A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts." U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 696, 702, 703 (1898).
In your view, are Supreme Court cases part of the "law" which is available to be read? If so, then if foreign-born children can only become citizens by being naturalized via statute, how is it that they are also "natural born citizens?"
I'm not quite seeing how an argument based in part on a 100+ year old case is dismissed as "leftwing silliness."
Can you reconcile your view that Cruz is NBC with this statement of the SCOTUS?
You are just plain deluded and I could care less what law you drag up. Laws do not amend the Constitution.