“Susan Carlson’s piece is a joke. I know that you don’t know me, or my background and experience, but her piece is a gross misrepresentation of the case.”
But you see that is where there is a controversy. Some people agree with you, but many also don’t. You may dismiss her and others like her, but others don’t. The whole fact that there is a controversy means that it is not settled. I offer you another bipartisan opinion on this to underscore my argument: http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/on-the-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen/
“Do you think natural born citizenship can (constitutionally) be stripped by an act of Congress?”
No I don’t think that. But I don’t even know why you’re going down that road - as I understand it Bellei was stripped of his citizenship because he never came back to the US, something that Cruz did.
“If the source is a statute, he is not a natural born citizen, he is a naturalized citizen.”
And that is where you and I (and a lot of other people) disagree. Believe it or not, I actually am not a full-fledged Cruz supporter (I’m currently undecided in the GOP primary), but I disagree with this treatment and do you know why? You mentioned earlier that I don’t know you or your experience, but the same can be said of me. One of the reasons I think it’s terribly unfair for Ted Cruz - who has lived as an American and a public servant - to be treated this way is because in the past I lived overseas for many years and realize just how many Americans would be mistreated by this interpretation of the Constitution. (It’s not something for me personally as I am American-born to American parents - heck, I can trace some of my ancestors back to the 1600s in Colonial America) But children of diplomats, military families, missionaries, etc, etc are all mistreated by this strict letter-rather-than-spirit-of-the-law interpretation.
An example I offer is Bruce Willis, the all-American tough guy who is in the exact same situation as Ted Cruz: born in a foreign country to a foreign mother and an American father. It sounds kind of silly to say that Willis is not a natural born citizen and thus ineligible to be president. I know he’s not running but still it’s something to think about and to realize how many people are in this category.
Put simply, I don’t think that you personally realize how many people there are that are marginalized by your side’s interpretation of the Constitution. Indeed, you seem quite unbothered by that. I find that rather disconcerting.
“I don’t care if you are satisfied with the authorities cited. I don’t care if you are wrong. I have no interest in arguing with you. I have nothing further to say to you.”
Now sit back and try to view that statement from my perspective and see how arrogant that sounds.
I am open to seeing it from other people’s points of view, but I have also found a lot of opposition to your position. I have also found people interpreting what you say in a totally different way. I think that qualifies as a controversy and shows that this issue needs to be resolved in the courts. I just can’t see how it’s settled, as you say.
The constitution isn't as harsh or black and white as is casually discussed. Art IV Sec. 2 citizenship tracks citizenship of a state, which is driven by domicile. Domicile is where you live. Most people wander from where they live, and that doesn't change their domicile.
But it's awkward to talk with those long-phrases, and the history (of the law) and other materials use shorthand of "where you were born," even though that is not exactly what the constitution says.
-- Now sit back and try to view that statement from my perspective and see how arrogant that sounds. --
I understand and agree, and accept the label. I think it would be odd if a person didn't view it as arrogant, or cock-sure, or similar. I get weary of pointless discussions with people who are determined to get to a certain outcome just because it's the one that "feels like that's how things should be." The debate becomes obtuse, pedantic, and sophistic, and I lack patience.
-- I just can't see how it's settled, as you say. --
My sense that it is settled as a matter of law comes from reviewing the precedents. A person born abroad (that's the shorthand I discussed above) is naturalized, period. So says SCOTUS, every time a born-abroad citizenship case is decided. That's the right conclusion if one follows the rules of citizenship set up in the constitution. It's relatively simple logic, needs no reference to statute, and comports with the law of nations where people are a citizen of one country or another.
FWIW, diplomats are carved out - they are are deemed to always be in their home country, no matter where they are in the world.
-- I think that qualifies as a controversy and shows that this issue needs to be resolved in the courts. --
It's a controversy in the public, for sure. The public is confused about almost everything. And the legal scholars are working overtime to condition the public to accept that naturalized citizens should be able to ascend to the presidency. But today, the constitution doesn't allow that. To accept it is a step toward one-world-government. That step WILL be taken. Our national identity is being erased, slow, steady, and sure.
I'm glad I was mistaken, thinking you were pig-headed.