I'm not saying that. I find that it is settled law that he is not.
I did mistake your cite as being to the Katyal/Clement article, and just now noticed that their work was one of several you cited, so my remark in reply to 247 was wrong, being based on that false assumption. My remark to 247 was that the katyal/Clement article fails to cite controlling law.
Understood. I did a cut-and-paste of both sides of the issue in order not to appear to be hiding anything from the Cruz sycophants.