On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 05:19:06 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Sunday, January 10, 2016 at 9:51:09 PM UTC-5, T wrote:
Here is a somewhat hostile interview with Donald Trump.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016...l?intcmp=hpbt1

You get to hear him in his own words and make you own mind up.
He covers the Cruz citizenship issue and well as other issues.

Illustrative that you think this interview was "somewhat hostile".
It was about as benign as an interview can get. For example,
when asking Trump about his birther position with Cruz, he could
have played Trump back in Sept being asked about that issue.
Trumps said then that he understands that all the experts, lawyers,
etc have looked into it, there is no problem, Cruz is fine there.

Then Trump lies here and says no one knows what "natural born"
means. It's not hard to find. Here for example is an
article from the Harvard Law Review, written by two former
solicitor generals, from two different administrations, outlining
the well defined history of where the term came from and how it was
clarified by the first Congress, two hundred years ago.


http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/...-born-citizen/


All the sources routinely used to interpret the Constitution confirm that the phrase "natural born Citizen" has a specific meaning: namely, someone who was a U.S. citizen at birth with no need to go through a naturalization proceeding at some later time. And Congress has made equally clear from the time of the framing of the Constitution to the current day that, subject to certain residency requirements on the parents, someone born to a U.S. citizen parent generally becomes a U.S. citizen without regard to whether the birth takes place in Canada, the Canal Zone, or the continental United States.2×

While some constitutional issues are truly difficult, with framing-era sources either nonexistent or contradictory, here, the relevant materials clearly indicate that a "natural born Citizen" means a citizen from birth with no need to go through naturalization proceedings."


+1 Shucks, you gave Todd the link I was holding back on. He could have
already checked into the facts; but instead, he keeps defending Trump.
Trump is not qualified to give Cruz legal advice. There is no need for
a "declaratory judgment". The law is already in place by congress.