You took some wind out of my sails, Mister Valentine. And will consider your post [above] the ‘last word’ on this matter [in a legal sense] if it is not effectively countered.
And I thank you. I would rather believe in Cruz as a constitutional scholar.
Been goading people for some time now. And finally, someone managed to do it.
Regarding Natural Born Eligibility and the 14th Amendment ...
Minor v. Happersett ...
“The ruling contains many long and ardent discussions of the fact that women are citizens of the United States and have all the same rights as men. But, it concludes that the right to vote is not one of them.”
[Well done!]
“So, voting is not a right inherent in citizenship ...”
‘Notwithstanding this the records of the courts are full of cases in which the jurisdiction depends upon the citizenship of women, and not one can be found, we think, in which objection was made on that account.’
[That would appear to back your argument, ‘not one can be found, we think ...’ But a court opinion with the addition, ‘we think’, does not sound very solid to me.]
‘The Court did not decide on any other right or privilege of Citizenship but it did in its reasoning imply that the rights of women that accrue by virtue of citizenship are essentially congruous with the rights of men. I argue that would include the right of women to bequeath their citizenship upon their children in the same manner and to the same extent as men.’
I agree that is a strong argument, probably strong enough to win in court. But not bullet-proof when scholars refer to original intent.
A woman’s rights are not violated if her son is not ‘natural born’. If you think that argument is gimmicky and unfair, I agree. But we must not expect the other side to be fair.
We would be much better off with solid, clearly eligible candidates. And I would support a constitutional amendment to make a brilliant patriot such as Cruz eligible beyond the shadow of a doubt. Then people could better unite behind him.
I still am concerned that Senate Majority-Traitor McConman has a large enough fig leaf to let him keep his foot over Cruz’ neck on this issue without shame [and a dagger in the Tea Party’s back].
Re. your comment: “A woman’s rights are not violated if her son is not ‘natural born’. If you think that argument is gimmicky and unfair, I agree. But we must not expect the other side to be fair.”
I do not consider such an argument to be either gimmicky or unfair. This goes to the heart of the meaning of the phrase ‘natural born citizen’. My own view is that there never has been unanimity on the full meaning of this term. Some thought it included only Class A and no others. Some thought it included both Class A and Class B, but not C. Others thought it included Class A and Class C, but not Class B.
Where:
Class A represents children born in the territory of the US; both or one citizen parent
Class B represents children born in the territory of the US; neither parent a citizen
Class C represents children born outside the territory of the US; both or one citizen parent
I could add more classes and/or subclasses - it doesn’t stop here.
I think for the understanding of all and in the interest of clarity this phrase could be altered by Amendment to read “Citizen by birth”.