-- Additionally, Mr. Bellei never fulfilled the residency clause, while Mr. Cruz did. --
The residency clause doesn't play any more. But when it did, citizenship could be stripped by the same statute that gave it. This happened to Bellei, his citizenship was stripped from him. He sued to get it back. He lost, all the way to SCOTUS. Do you think natural born citizenship can (constitutionally) be stripped by an act of Congress?
With Cruz, the issue isn't whether the citizenship he has can be stripped. The issue is "what is the source of his claim to citizenship." If the source is a statute, he is not a natural born citizen, he is a naturalized citizen.
-- I don't want to fight but it's clear that this is not settled law --
100% of the cases on derived citizenship (citizenship by blood, not born in the US) say citizenship to a person not born a citizen of one of the several states is a naturalized citizen. The only way "this is not settled law" is that there has never been a case naming a president-elect.
I don't care if you are satisfied with the authorities cited. I don't care if you are wrong. I have no interest in arguing with you. I have nothing further to say to you.
“Susan Carlson’s piece is a joke. I know that you don’t know me, or my background and experience, but her piece is a gross misrepresentation of the case.”
But you see that is where there is a controversy. Some people agree with you, but many also don’t. You may dismiss her and others like her, but others don’t. The whole fact that there is a controversy means that it is not settled. I offer you another bipartisan opinion on this to underscore my argument: http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/on-the-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen/
“Do you think natural born citizenship can (constitutionally) be stripped by an act of Congress?”
No I don’t think that. But I don’t even know why you’re going down that road - as I understand it Bellei was stripped of his citizenship because he never came back to the US, something that Cruz did.
“If the source is a statute, he is not a natural born citizen, he is a naturalized citizen.”
And that is where you and I (and a lot of other people) disagree. Believe it or not, I actually am not a full-fledged Cruz supporter (I’m currently undecided in the GOP primary), but I disagree with this treatment and do you know why? You mentioned earlier that I don’t know you or your experience, but the same can be said of me. One of the reasons I think it’s terribly unfair for Ted Cruz - who has lived as an American and a public servant - to be treated this way is because in the past I lived overseas for many years and realize just how many Americans would be mistreated by this interpretation of the Constitution. (It’s not something for me personally as I am American-born to American parents - heck, I can trace some of my ancestors back to the 1600s in Colonial America) But children of diplomats, military families, missionaries, etc, etc are all mistreated by this strict letter-rather-than-spirit-of-the-law interpretation.
An example I offer is Bruce Willis, the all-American tough guy who is in the exact same situation as Ted Cruz: born in a foreign country to a foreign mother and an American father. It sounds kind of silly to say that Willis is not a natural born citizen and thus ineligible to be president. I know he’s not running but still it’s something to think about and to realize how many people are in this category.
Put simply, I don’t think that you personally realize how many people there are that are marginalized by your side’s interpretation of the Constitution. Indeed, you seem quite unbothered by that. I find that rather disconcerting.
“I don’t care if you are satisfied with the authorities cited. I don’t care if you are wrong. I have no interest in arguing with you. I have nothing further to say to you.”
Now sit back and try to view that statement from my perspective and see how arrogant that sounds.
I am open to seeing it from other people’s points of view, but I have also found a lot of opposition to your position. I have also found people interpreting what you say in a totally different way. I think that qualifies as a controversy and shows that this issue needs to be resolved in the courts. I just can’t see how it’s settled, as you say.