[AmericanVictory]

The only recent cases I have read about involve two election boards, one in Illinois and one in New York. In the case of the Illinois Election board the opinion consists of a couple of sentences with no supporting citation whatsoever of any actual legal decision. As such it is worthless as legal precedent in an actual court. According to the news accounts of the New York election board it declined to make a decision and said that the matter would have to be decided by a court. Again, this does not constitute any legal precedent, consisting of ducking the question.

I don't believe, with all due respect, that not bringing a case establishes any law at all.

The fact remains that there is no decision on the merits of the issue of the meaning of the presidential eligibility clause in Article II. Therefore, Senator Cruz is taking a chance and it is difficult to find any evidence in the notes of the Constitution and its ratifying conventions that supports his eligibility because none such exist.

[Cold Heat]

Yes. it does exist.... There is more than adequate case law but no case has been adjudicated that looks like the case that Trump has been trumpeting..

The best explanation I have seen of Cruzes’ eligibility is in the congressional record of 1795, if I recall correctly.

Some legal scholars claim it was changed 4 or 5 years later, and there was a rewrite to a degree, but that portion relating to Cruz was not changed, as evidenced in subsequent law written over 100 years later. Since that time, the general understanding is that Ted Cruz falls under this interpretation of the natural born term as meant by the Convention.