Replies

-- Check out post 17, Cruz's citizenship is well laid out. Constitutional in origin. --

Constitutional in origin, yes, but it depends on a statute.

Cruz would have us invert the normal operation of law (all citizenship being a question of law), by having acts of Congress become superior over the constitution. This is subversive of the constitution.

If we look the the constitution first, it defines citizen of the US. Notice I did not claim that it defines natural born citizen, merely that it defines citizen. Article IV, Sec. 2., "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."

I trust that nobody disagrees with this proposition of what "the law is" (channeling Marbury v. Madison).

While this is not the only place that the constitution describes the attributes of being a citizen, it is the starting point. A person born pursuant to this clause is a citizen. Without operation of further law, a person who does not fit this description is not a citizen.

The constitution does contain further law, it was amended, and contains the 14th amendment, which provides that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." This does not help Ted Cruz.

In order for Ted Cruz to mount his argument, he must resort to an act of Congress that made him a citizen-at-birth.

And as I opened, he must further make this act of congress superior to the constitution in order to convert his citizenship-by-statute into "natural" citizenship.

His hand waving works because it can be presented in a simple sound bite that appeals to those ignorant of how the law works.