BS. Bellei does not rely in its outcome on determination of NBC status. Indeed, there is only one possible case where discussion of NBC status can be the ratio decidendi, the reason for the decision, and not dicta, and that is the only case in American law where it matters, presidential eligibility, and that has never been adjudicated.
Peace,
SR
A necessary premise for taking the Bellei case is that Bellei was naturalized.
You err by taking the finding that Bellei is naturalized as unnecessary to the case. Dicta is rhetoric that is unnecessary, material that can be removed from the decision, and the decision still stands. If Bellei was not naturalized (even if he had been found to be a 14th amendment naturalized citizen), it would have been unconstitutional to uphold the part of the law that stripped him of his citizenship.
The Bellei case doesn't settle NBC for all candidates, but it does settle it for Cruz.
There are several problems here. First, the Supreme Court did take up a very closely related set of questions in a 1971 case. (That would be the year after Cruz was born.) In that case — Rogers v. Bellei — involved a man born in Italy to an Italian father and a U.S. citizen mother and deemed a natural-born U.S. citizen. The man obtained a passport as a child, traveled to the United States many times and even registered with Selective Service when required (making himself available in the event of a U.S. military draft). But the man never met a requirement that those with dual citizenship live inside the United States for at least five years by the age of 28. American officials warned Aldo Bellei about this requirement several times, including the last time he renewed his U.S. passport. He didn’t meet it. His citizenship was revoked. He sued the then Nixon administration’s secretary of state, William P. Rogers. A lower court ruled in Bellei’s favor. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled against him. Bellei’s days as a U.S. citizen were no more.
Now, the Cruz campaign made the case to The Fix that Rogers v. Bellei defined the term “natural-born citizen.” To this, we have to say, not quite. But it’s pretty easy to see that, at least by the standard identified by the Supreme Court in Rogers v. Bellei, Cruz has been a natural-born citizen since birth and has more than met the requirements to sustain that in ways that Bellei did not.
[[He filed suit to prevent the Secretary of State from carrying out and enforcing the residency requirement claiming that it violated due process under the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia agreed with Mr. Bellei and ruled that § 301(b) was unconstitutional.
The State Department appealed and the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the lower court ruling holding that the citizenship clause of U.S. Constitutional Amendment XIV did not apply to citizenship by birth abroad to an American parent. Further, that Congress’ imposition under § 301(b) of a condition subsequent to citizenship was not unreasonable, arbitrary, or unlawful.]]
The Bellei case it seems is about whether a person with dual citizenship has requirements they must meet in order to remain a US citizen- The lower court agreed with Bellei that citizens do not- but the supreme court stepped in and said- essentially, ‘Sorry- but citizens do have requirements in order to remain citizens, and Bellei did not meet those requirements- therefore Mr. Bellei loses his citizenship’
[[The statute governing Cruz is: 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401:
“The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years.”]]
Same link