I’m not sure this discussion is any more than an academic exercise. In my, perhaps narrow-minded, view if a candidate is on the ballot, he or she has been deemed qualified. If others, want to take it to court, more power to them. Legal fights are not at all in my wheelhouse.
When asked about this publicly Ted Cruz had a very poor answer. In my opinion, his reply should have been something like:
“This is a complicated issue because the language both in the Constitution and other parts of the law is, despite what some advocates of particular formulas or legal positions say, unclear. It is something we need to clarify. As president, I will do that. It needs to be done. But, you may rest assured that I have no national allegiance to any nation except the United States. I am an American. It is the only county I want to be a citizen of.”
Cruz didn’t do that. Instead, he just brushed the question off and I think that was a huge mistake and I do think it hurt his campaign. Cruz should have made clarifying this an issue and worn it like a badge.
Though honestly, Ted was born in Canada, to an American mother with a Cuban father and lived as a young child in Canada. I don’t see how he can meet a non-excessively convoluted standard.
Nikki Haley, I can see a case being made for.
The Gabbard woman, no she falls into the same category as Ted Cruz.
John McPain, US citizen parent in the military born overseas, I have no problem with (We’re putting politics aside here) Assuming he was ACTUALLY born in Hawaii, not Kenya Barrack Obama has a better case than Ted Cruz.
Given the standard, some on FR use Barry Goldwater was ineligible because when he was born Arizona was a territory, not a state.
More to the point, as we found out with Obama, if someone wants to take it to court, the courts will not touch it.