I think the Dems will let him run, and even if he was to win, they would not push all too hard to prove he is not qualified and then removed. I believe they want to allow him to set precedence so they have no trouble with future candidates of their own.
It’s a game of incrementalism(is that a word?)and besides, there is not enough time to drag the issue though courts and arrive at a conclusion.
I like Cruz, but the cloud of uncertainty over his eligibility is unsettling.
I won't deny that in the minds of some, there is a question about the NBC status of Cruz. But none in mine. I am certain that under any standard, that of the Framers or a modern standard, Cruz is an NBC. Rubio would not be if the standard of the Framers' day were applied, but in the modern age of the 'anchor baby', supported by the courts, he would be. In any case, it ain't gonna be Rubio. He's a dead man walking. It could be Cruz, I think he can have the numbers by Convention time; if not ta majority, then a plurality at least. The Democrats will make eligibility an issue at their own risk. And they will lose in court and everywhere. It's not a good issue for them.
‘I think the Dems will let him run.....’
If they let him run, it would be a disaster:-
I admit Cruz will be better than Hillary, but for us to join the Dems to destroy the US Constitution, in this case, to destroy article 2 nbc requirement, without the proper Amendment, would be hypocritical. We would be no better than the RATS!
+1
I like Cruz, but the cloud of uncertainty over his eligibility is unsettling.
And it's not only constitutional conservatives or those who were educated when civics was regularly taught in school for whom his Canadian birth is a problem. I've also encountered twenty-something, low-info voters (independents, republicans) who reject the idea of electing a president born in Canada.