Then I have good news for you: Ted Cruz is eligible to run for and be elected President.
I used to say that he was "almost certainly" eligible to the Presidency. As of today, I'm even dropping that small qualifier.
Ted Cruz is Constitutionally eligible.
What do I base this on?
First, there doesn't seem to be even one prominent, widely recognized Constitutional authority in the country (and no, Herb Titus doesn't count) who says that Ted Cruz isn't eligible. So the opinion that Cruz is eligible seems to be pretty much unanimous.
Second, there is a lot of historical evidence that indicates that "natural born citizen" simply meant "citizen by birth," and that the Founders intended for people like Ted Cruz to be eligible.
Third (and this is what has made the difference) Chief Justice John Marshall, who was an important Founder of our Republic in addition to his 3-1/2 decades as Chief Justice, and who CERTAINLY would have known what the term meant, seems to have been fully in agreement that the term simply meant a "citizen by birth."
Incidentally, I have compiled quotes of what our best early legal authorities said about the meaning of "natural born citizen," which I will post after this post.
Somebody said this on FR long time ago, to wit: if 0bama is a NBC, anybody is an NBC. Heck, SCOTUS won't even take the case.
They won't take the case because the issue was settled in 1898, in US v. Wong Kim Ark.
Doesn't it seem odd that the Supreme Court would refuse to hear a case on such an important matter as whether it takes birth on US soil plus citizen parents to make a "natural born citizen," if the matter were unresolved?
They won't take the case because it was settled more than a century ago.
What is the “weight of authority” that supports the idea that someone such as Senator Cruz is eligible to “be” President as satisfying the Natural Born Citizen requirement?
The CRS report (referenced above) is a good place to start from a legal point of view. My compilation of quotes from the best authorities of early America, below, is a good place to start from the historical point of view.
There actually isn’t any possibility for an individual born in the US with neither parent being US citizens, either, but authorities have been being very permissive and the perception is such.
It's not because authorities have been "permissive." It's because it never took citizen parents for someone born on US soil to be a natural born citizen. This has been said again and again by authority after authority in history. See below.
What about all the arguments that have been made, such as: "The United States Supreme Court in MINOR v, HAPPERSETT, 88 U.S. 162 (1875) clarified the definition of NATURAL BORN that a child born of two U.S. Citizens is a Natural Born citizen.
Almost all arguments put forth by birthers are historical and legal NONSENSE. In the case of Minor v. Happersett, they never said you had to have citizen parents. They only said that if you had both, it was certain that you were a natural born citizen. Their comment regarding children of non-citizens was simply a non-authoritative side comment (dicta) unrelated to the case at hand, and even if it had had any authority, it would've been overruled by the decision in US v. Wong Kim Ark.
In addition to the compilation of quotes from our best early legal authorities, I have a running list of at least around 40 fallacious arguments made by birthers. It includes just about all of the major arguments they've ever made, and explains why each one is fallacious.
There are a few - a VERY few - people in history who actually did agree with the birthers. But in every case, they were overruled or contradicted by others of equal or (almost always) greater authority and expertise in the law.
Next, I will post the updated list of quotes relevant to natural born citizenship from early American authorities.
What qualifies you to make your assumptions?
Where to begin? Your post is so full of distortions as to unreadable to those that know the truth of the matter.
Take me off your ping list, I already get the Sunday funnies...and didn’t need to read your nonsense.
I wish you did have good news but good news without reality is not really news at all.
As I said, the Constitution is more important to me than political expediency.
widely recognized Constitutional authority in the country
Which constitutional authorities have been queried regarding Senator Cruz and what was their response?
Chief Justice John Marshall
Chief Justice John Marshall, in delivering the opinion of the Court in Marbury v. Madison (1803) stated, “It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect; and therefore such construction is inadmissible, unless the words require it.” “Citizen,” “naturalization” and “natural born Citizen” are ALL in the Original, unamended Constitution; therefore, none can mean the same thing.
How do you explain why the founders made the distinct reference to "natural born" in the case of the President but did not in the case of Congress?
We do this, we lose all credibility on this issue. Sorry. it’s been widely understood the requirements for the presidency include being born in the United States of America.
I love Cruz as my senator. I would not vote for him as president for precisely this reason. I don’t see ‘convenience’ as a good reason to toss aside the constitution.