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.
As for you admonition that I "grow up and deal with things the way they are," I see the NBC clause as dead, now, anyway. At least for as long as Congress ignores it and courts and SCOTUS refuse to deal with it. There is no downside to the constitution, seeking a ruling.
But you should be a realist too, and ponder that if SCOTUS writes the NBC clause out of the constitution (by allowing naturalized citizens to hold the office), then SCOTUS is effectively amending the constitution - a role it is not given. If it rules according to all of it's precedents, according to the constitution, the NBC clause lives, and Cruz's hopes do not.
Feeling lucky? What are the odds? How confident are you, that the court is ready to reverse 200+ years of rock solid precedent to save Cruz's bacon, and change the constitution in a way that is RADICALLY different from what that document says.
From my point of view, you believe he is qualified. Fine with me. My conscience is clear as a bell on this subject.
David, I have no more to say to you, and if I happen to be on one of your "reply" or "ping" lists, please remove me. I notice many names in the "to" line and have trying to make sure to reply to all of you.