No question Ted Cruz is eligible to be president

The Bryan-College Station Eagle ^ | January 10, 2016 | The Editorial Board

[South Dakota]

That’s the Harvard Law review opinion.
How many US SC rulings are unanimous?Supreme Court precedent: The courts have applied the partus sequitur patrem principle (citizenship by descent from one’s father) to determine who is, or who is not, a federal (U.S.) citizen at birth; but the meaning of natural born citizen appears to be a separate issue [21]. To this day, the Supreme Court, in its majority opinions, has consistently used the term “natural born citizen” only in reference to persons born on U.S. soil, to parents who are both U.S. citizens.

In Scott v. Sandford (1856), Justice Daniel’s concurring opinion characterized, as unexceptionable (beyond criticism or objection), the Vattelian Law of Nations view of citizenship, which includes:
“natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens” (Scott v. Sandford, 1856)

[jdsteel]

Despite older, no longer relevant definitions (such as the one that includes foreign born individuals that were here prior to the existence of the USA) the test for a NATURALIZED citizen includes not being a citizen prior to taking classes, passing a test and being sworn in. The ONLY other definition is an NBC, in which one is a citizen at birth due to the U.S. citizenship of at least one parent (no longer parent”S”). There is a mechanism in place to settle this issue from state to state where the Party (in this case the Republican Party) of the state CERTIFIES the candidates as qualified to appear on the ballot. For instance, on December 15, 2015 the Republican Party of Virginia CERTIFIED that Ted Cruz (as well as 12 others) were QUALIFIED to appear on the 2016 Republican Presidential Primary ballot. The Party, as well as the State, has an obligation to certify that the person running is eligible to do so.

So, if you have a beef with me, Rush and Levin on this issue please know you also have a beef with 50 states, the Republican Party state organizations for 50 states and the National Republican Party. Of all of those the 101 last mentioned are the most important and have the most legal responsibility to certify eligibility.

[Cboldt]

-- ... your opinion doesn't matter when it comes to his legal status. --

Butting in to make a nitpciky point, his opinion doesn't determine any legal outcome. It doesn't remove Cruz from the race. But, his opinion might matter if he won't vote for a candidate that he deems ineligible.

That dynamic plays out across the universe of voters.

[jdsteel]

“Butting in to make a nitpciky point, his opinion doesn’t determine any legal outcome. It doesn’t remove Cruz from the race. But, his opinion might matter if he won’t vote for a candidate that he deems ineligible.”

Correct! And, if like Obama, he had hired a team of lawyers, spent tons of money and legally put all of the information surrounding his birth and college career into a legal black hole people might be less inclined to vote for him. IF Cruz wins the primary it won’t matter. It’ll be him and Hildabeast.

[South Dakota]

I made that point a long time ago. My state is South Dakota.
I could break the law and vote a hundred times in SD and the Republican would still carry Sd.

In the battleground states is where the election will be won or lost.

My argument will be the enemedia’s message. The will go with it 24/7?
We will see how it flies there

[South Dakota]

4.4 Current Federal Statutes: Current Federal law, specifically Title 8 Section 1401, lists those who are U.S. citizens at birth (persons who acquire U.S. citizenship at the time of their birth), but does not specify persons who are U.S. citizens by birth [45].

The term natural born citizen is not found in any existing Federal statute. Although the U.S.-born child of a foreign-citizen parent is a U.S. citizen by modern-day policy, no existing Federal statute declares such a child to be a natural born citizen