A point germane to this discussion is that Barry never claimed to be a natural born citizen of the U.S. He claimed, on his own website, Stopthesmears.com, to have been born "a subject of the British Commonwealth", "by the British Nationality act of 1948. Barry told us, honestly and precisely, that he was "native-born", which, in the language of our first "Uniform Rule of Naturalization", the 14th Amendment; native-born in the 14th Amendment refers to anyone born on our sovereign soil. Barry continued his description with "citizen" - "I am a native-born citizen of the U.S.". While there might be questions about his alien father's jurisdiction while in the U.S. on a student visa, U.S. code based upon the 14th Amendment passed in the 20th century made him a citizen because his mother was a citizen.
Ted Cruz' was not born on our soil. But Barry, having the same constitutional law professor as Ted, had the integrity never to claim natural born citizenship for himself. Were Ted the "constitutional conservative" he claims to be, he never would have earned the title "hypocrite", meaning liar, used by Larry Tribe to describe his "brilliant" "originalist" student in the January 11, 2016 Boston Globe.
To see further hypocrisy on this very issue read for yourselves the excellent description of "Conservative" and "Originalist" in Mark Levin's Liberty and Tyranny, "On The Constitution", p36. Levin, now best known for his non-stop infomercial for Ted, says: "The Conservative is an orgiginalist, for he believes that much like a contract, The Constitution sets forth certain terms and conditions that hold the same meaning today as they did yesterday and should tomorrow." ..."If the Constitution's meaning can be erased or rewritten and the Framers' intensions ignored, it ceases to be a a constitution but is instead a concoction of political expedients that serve the contemporary policy agendas of the few who are entrusted with public authority to preserve it".
Mark continues with a quotation of James Madison' which clarified for this writer the reasoning behind the framer's explicit omission of term definitions in the Constitution. "If the meaning of the text be sought in the changeable meaning of the the words composing it, it is evident that the shapes and attributes of the Government must partake of the changes to which the words and phrases of all living languages are constantly subject." Mark continued "To say that the Constitution is a "living and breathing document" is to give license to arbitrary and lawless activism." Mark, who now cites honest "living and breathing document" proponent Larry Tribe, who just happened to skip the nullification of the 1790 Naturalization Act in his letter the Senate Judiciary Committee Hearings on SR 511, the Obama/Clinton/McCaskill resolution to declare John McCain a natural born citizen. Levine used Tribe's citation of a dead law, which could not have had effect anyway since Congress cannot amend or interpret Supreme Court decisions, but had already been changed in 1795 by Madison and Washington. Larry Tribe and Barack didn't lie. They are admitted "living and breathing" constitutional progressives. Ted, the self-proclaimed "conservative", now reinterprets the Constitution with former originalist Levin. Could large remainder purchases of Levin's books have anything to do with it? Could future legal work for Landmark Legal Foundation, contracts certainly controlled by GOP elites be turning Mark into a believer in a "living Constitution"?
As Mark might have said seven or eight years ago, read original sources. Here is just a taste, for which I thank RXSID; whoever he is, he is clearly a scholar, and pointed out this work as we at FR explored Obama's eligibility - or not. From Thomas Paine, Rights of Man, "Of Constitutions":
"if there is any Government where prerogatives might, with apparent safety be entrusted to any individual, it is in the federal Government of America. The president of the United States of America is elected only for four years. He is not only responsible in the general sense of the word, but a particular mode is laid down in the Constitution for trying him. He cannot be elected under thirty-five years of age; and he must be a native of the country."
"The presidency in America (or, as it is sometimes called, the executive) is the only office from which a foreigner is excluded, and in England it is the only one to which he is admitted. A foreigner cannot be a member of parliament, but he may be what is called a King. If there is any reason for excluding foreigners it ought to be from those offices where mischief can be most acted, and where by uniting every bias of interest and attachment, the trust is best secured."There is much more brilliance in Paine's work, by which most of today's political analysis pales. in this chapter. When Paine said "...must be a native of the country", he was using American common-law, cited and confirmed in Minor v. Happersett, used in Supreme Court cases from the 1790s until at least 1939, cited in Perkins v. Elg. Until the 14th Amendment's many derivative construction, without applications for naturalization, both Obama and Cruz would have been born aliens or foreigners. Wong Kim Ark, born to parents on our soil was made a citizen at birth by the Supreme Court in 1898, but never a natural born citizen, explicitly stated by Gray in the decision. Bot Wong Kim was born on our soil, to parents who had clearly accepted U.S. jurisdiction. China forbade repudiation of citizenship, but his parents were registered "domiciled" residents.
I, and the courts, respectfully disagree with your argument
Many years ago, as the American POWs were being released in Hanoi, the well-placed and often quoted U.S. Army historian Brigadier General S.L.A. Marshal met PAVN General Giap.
Marshal (after a few of his customary martinis) tried to get into Giap’s face and said, “You know, General, any time... in fact every time... significant US Army or Marine forces met your North Vietnamese forces in a a major battle, we won!”
Giap thought for few moments, and politely replied, “Entirely true.... and entirely meaningless.”
Such are the arguments about Cruz and the citizenship issue for two reasons.
First, the current U.S Code 1401 defines a “natural born citizen.” Such definition has been upheld by SCOTUS. That means what I think may be entirely true... or entirely wrong. Likewise the opposite belief may be correct, or entirely false.
Neither matters one iota... and that part of it is settled as agreed by everyone who is not an anarchist. We may not like the law, but SCOTUS’s opinions count, not ours.
We may not like it, but that’s “house rules” in the good old US of A.
If we don’t like it, we can elect representatives who will pass a constitutional amendment saying otherwise.
But the second part is perhaps worse.
If Cruz was smart, he’d would have done a “Rocky Balboa” (after his opponent kept hitting Rocky) whenever anyone brought up the issue and said:
“Is that all you got? That’s the best you’ve got?”
US law says I’m a natural born citizen, period.
“Trumps screeching and angry child finger pointing? It’s bunk and every court has said it’s bunk! Anyone bringing up that bunk is trying to fog the issue because they are afraid people will agree with me on the issues, not this phony pseudo-citicenship issue.”
“Is that all Trump’s got!?!?!”
“When he couldn’t beat Carley Fiorina on the issues, he intimated she was ugly. When he couldn’t best Marco, he started talking about his size of his you know what. Think about it, Trump couldn’t even out-argue Marco, Marco Rubia!!! He couldn’t even debate... even Marco ...on the issues, so The Donald has to go back to his fear and insult tactics.”
“Think about it, he couldn’t even out-argue Marco Rubio!!!”
“Citizenship - Smitizenship... Every court says it’s bunk. Come back when you want to talk about the real issues that are going to affect Americans wallets, their lives, their security.... but not this phony BS.”
NO , I’M NOT SAYING I’M A CRUZ SUPPORTER, but that’s how Cruz should have handled it.