This is the case you quoted, and in context it does not seem to say what you think. That would mean that Cruz is not lying. I'm not saying that you are lying either, just mistaken. Several courts have ruled on whether Cruz is eligible, some finding in his favor on procedural grounds, but at least some finding in his favor on substance if I remember correctly. Thus, his statement is at worst a question in dispute, rather than a lie.
If you really love Hillary, keep up the divisive comments. I'd like to think that conservatives won't take offense even when a candidate they love is slammed dozens of times a day by supporters of a candidate they only like. I'm sure you'd like to think that too, but are you willing to bet our country's survival on it? Trump has a lot of votes, a third more than Cruz, but Cruz also has far too many votes to dismiss. Offending Cruz voters is not the best strategy for putting Trump in the White House. Please reconsider the systematic attacks on a candidate whose supporters Trump will need in November.
Your memory is correct. However, if you know the relevant precedents, and you look at the decisions favorable to Cruz, your impression would be different. The decisions favorable to Cruz do not apply the relevant precedents to the question.
I won't disagree with the contention that there is a current dispute as to the law, but 50 years ago there would be no dispute, and if the stakes weren't so prominent in the public eye (i.e., if this was an immigration case that affected only Ted Cruz, and not an election), the court would not evade the inevitable outcome.
“This is the case you quoted, and in context it does not seem to say what you think.”
No, that is just you waving your hands in the general direction of the U.S. Supreme Court decision and falsely denying the plain written words of the accurate statement in that case. The statement is an accurate statement of the actual practice of the U.S. Government and the findings in prior U.S. Supreme Court decisions in which any child born abroad with two U.S. citizen parents and without the protection of diplomatic immunity were denied any form of U.S. citizenship until and unless a U.S. Naturalization Act specifically naturalized the child as a naturalized U.S. citizen. If a child born abroad with two U.S. citizen parents and without the protection of diplomatic immunity was in actual natural born citizen, they could not have been and would not have been denied U.S. citizenship by the U.S. Supreme Court, but the U.S. Supreme Court did in fact deny such children born abroad any form of U.S. citizenship in the years between the Naturalization Act of 1802 to the later acts of Congress in 1855, 1866, and later. So, history proves beyond any reasonable doubt and beyond any shadow of a doubt that a child born abroad did not historically and cannot today acquire U.S. citizenship by any means whatsoever other than naturalization as a naturalized citizen.
“That would mean that Cruz is not lying.”
History demonstrates beyond any possible question that Ted Cruz can only be a naturalized U.S. citizen or else no U.S. citizen at all of any lawful kind. Ted Cruz appears to have known he was not a natural born citizen of the U.S. when he ordered his Senate campaign workers to remove the biographical posters mentioning his birth in Canada and/or his Canadian citizenship. This means busTED Cruz cannot escape history and the fact the Lyin’ Ted moniker is accurate enough to ring true with the vast majority of the electorate.
“I’m not saying that you are lying either, just mistaken. Several courts have ruled on whether Cruz is eligible, some finding in his favor on procedural grounds, but at least some finding in his favor on substance if I remember correctly. Thus, his statement is at worst a question in dispute, rather than a lie.”
A crowd of 1,001 fallen angels singing the praises of busted Cruz in the stormy heavens cannot change the historical reality that a child such as Ted Cruz born abroad cannot possibly be a natural born citizen of the United States, not even when the fallen angels include those in formal robes such as Sotomayor or Roberts. Any jurist who tries to do so will only be corrupting the court and the judiciary even more than we have already witnessed in so many other recent cases handled by the recent U.S. Supreme Courts and their inferior courts.
“If you really love Hillary, keep up the divisive comments.”
That comment reflects the reason why the voters are rejecting Ted Cruz as a dishonest candidate and his supporters for aiding and abetting the dishonesty of Ted Cruz. The opposition to such candidates has been in place long before Ted Cruz was born as a Canadian citizen in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Time and again the Republicans and the Democrats have tried to pass and ratify an Amendment to the Constitution that would remove the natural born citizen clause, because they knew any candidate born abroad or born domestically without two U.S. citizen parents was not a natural born citizen. After many of these attempts to adopt such an amendment failed, they changed tactics and chose to use the three branches of government, control of the two major political parties, and control of the media to simply deny the historical meaning and legal precedents of natural born citizenship and naturalized citizenship to nullify the natural born citizen clause. They are relying upon people like Barack Hussein Obama, John McCain, Ted Cruz, Bobby Jindal, Rick Santorum, Nikki Haley, and supporters like yourself to accomplish their objectives.
You folks have had fair warning for many many years, Nonetheless, you folks have disregarded all such warnings that have been around since before Ted Cruz was born that pushing forward such a candidate who actually is an unlawful candidate or who is at least reasonably suspected of being an unlawful candidate can only divide the Republican Party and the U.S. electorate when it came time for the General Election. If you folks did not want to risk a divided political party, you should have heeded these warnings that have been around since before Charles Hughes was defeated by the Democrats.
Now the chickens have come home to roost, and here you are still trying to divide the Republican Party with a candidate who has already lost the popular vote, lost most of the bound delegates, and remains subject to disqualification as a lawful Presidential candidate or an unlawful President Elect. You are in no position to be falsely accusing people, who are defending the Constitution and the rule of law in accordance with the plain written words of the law and the historical record of such children born abroad being denied U.S. citizenship, of dividing the Republican Party in this election. If you do not want to risk a divided Republican Party in this election, you can do so by prevailing upon busTED Cruz to end his illegal campaign and support the candidate with the most votes against the Democrats, Hillary Clinton, and Bernie Sanders.