Ummm, no. Read the statute 8 USC 1401. Maybe you are mixing things up with out of wedlock, the Nyugen case. That concerns 8 USC 1409, where there is a distinction based on which parent is a citizen.
-- If the argument gets to the Supreme Court, it will decide the issue on what it views as the current policy merits. --
I see. So your contention is that it is the function of the courts to legislate naturalization policy. Interesting. I wonder about your "separation of powers" sentiments. But hey, it is popular to advocate legislating from the bench.
-- The party is gearing up to kick him out at the convention in which case he isn't likely to get to the Court --
Really? If he is eligible, and the party allows him to invest all the time and energy, and the party certified him eligible. You say that if the party reneges, Cruz can't get a hearing to restore his honor? Wow. What a country.
-- You, like a number of people on the site here, and generally in our country, think the Constitution really means something on these close unresolved questions--it doesn't. --
I don't see it as a close unresolved question, having reviews scores of cases on the subject. You are spouting nonsense, and from my point of view are an uninformed blowhard.
You are misleading people who may trust you. That's on your conscience, not mine.
Ummm, no. Read the statute 8 USC 1401. Maybe you are mixing things up with out of wedlock, the Nyugen case.
As to Cruz, he was born before the statute was amended. The effective dates are in the footnotes which the cite doesn't pick up; if it is retroactive to dates at issue, you would be correct. Doesn't make any difference to the present argument about Cruz because whether or not the citizenship statute applicable to his birth status is really constitutional isn't going to be decisive.
-- If the argument gets to the Supreme Court, it will decide the issue on what it views as the current policy merits. -- I see. So your contention is that it is the function of the courts to legislate naturalization policy. Interesting. I wonder about your "separation of powers" sentiments. But hey, it is popular to advocate legislating from the bench.
No. You are misstating the argument. If you mean do I think that is a proper function of the courts, no, I don't.
But you need to grow up and deal with things the way they are, not the way you wish they were. You may not like it this way; I don't; but we need to address these issues in the real world.
The Court and related establishment interests are writing law and have been for a long time. There are lots of examples.
The debate here is over the question of who we should try to install as President.
And even there that is a close question. I think Cruz is smarter and closer to the levers of power than Trump is so I would probably pick Cruz. At the primary stage, I don't think the Article II, Sec. 1 question is really very relevant unless someone can make it legally relevant.
That has been tried already--to kick Cruz off the ballot in New Hampshire for example; there is a decision rejecting the effort. If he were my client, I would have a straw party appeal that decision to the federal courts and would then try to get a solid holding. Might not make that.
And Trump, as usual, is focused on the direct bottom line attack--and I don't think his motivation is totally adversary; he thinks, as I do, that Cruz ought to have acted long ago to get this issue out of the way.
As to your last point, that is really silly. ("The party allows him to . . . ") Cruz has gotten himself to the point where he is exposed; he should have dealt with it and hasn't; he will have to deal with the consequences.