More:
The same goes for Sen. Barry Goldwater, the GOP’s nominee in 1964, who was born in Arizona. The problem? Arizona wasn’t a state yet.
There’s no shortage of historical and scholarly thought on the presidential eligibility of a U.S. citizen board abroad (And Harvard Law graduate Cruz has likely read most of it.)
But here’s the bottom line: Courts, based on long-standing precedent derived from as far back as English common law and the First Congress, would be all but certain to say that Cruz, as the son of an American mother, qualifies as a “natural born citizen” eligible to serve as the commander-in-chief.
In other words, experts say: as long as you have one parent who’s an American citizen – no matter where you’re born – you’re a “natural born citizen,” one of the qualifications under the Constitution to serve as president.
From:
Yes, Ted Cruz Was Born in Canada. So What?
https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/yes-ted-cruz-was-born-canada-so-what-n329516
Why are you bringing this up?
What argument here would not be complete without an appeal to authority? Go find a global warming thread on DU and use the same tactic... it always works
Anwar al-Awlaki’s kids, born in Yemen to one citizen parent, are natural born citizens of the USA and eligible to be President?
Ludicrous.
Not an example because it doesn't prove what you wish it to prove. Arizona was a US territory and Goldwater's parents were US citizens.
But here’s the bottom line: Courts, based on long-standing precedent derived from as far back as English common law and the First Congress, would be all but certain to say that Cruz, as the son of an American mother, qualifies as a “natural born citizen” eligible to serve as the commander-in-chief.
"Courts" are routinely full of sh*t, and often instructing us to believe ridiculous things.
"Courts" are the "expert fallacy." They aren't "experts" and they don't know what the hell they are talking about.