On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 5:23:44 PM UTC-5, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jan 2016 17:42:54 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Monday, January 11, 2016 at 2:55:08 PM UTC-5, Ashton Crusher wrote:
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

That's nice but it still leaves the open question, "was Cruz a citizen
at birth". According to the CFR on the subject it's an open question
until the residency for his mother for a year prior to his birth can
be pinned down.

Nonsense. The requirement is that his mother had to have lived in the
USA for at least 10 years, at least 5 of those after attaining the age
of 14. His mother's history is known, she was born in Delaware, lived
here, attended school here, graduated from Rice University, etc.



I posted the link a day or two ago. In another forum
it was also said that his mother needed to file some form at the time
of his birth to document this and so far no one has provided any
evidence the form was filed.


Lots of things are said in lots of forums that aren't true.



So Yes, much is know about what the requirements are. What is not
known is whether ALL those requirements have been complied with and
fulfilled. So it's still an open question for THIS specific case.


Not a single person who has looked at this has raised an issue
of Cruz not being a US citizen at birth by virtue of anything
that you've brought up related to his mother meeting requirements.
The argument, with not much merit, is focused on the meaning of
"natural born". And I'd say those two solicitor generals outline
a very compelling case. BTW, where is Trump's case that shows
otherwise? It's like his claim that he can eliminate citizenship
for anchor babies, without a constitutional amendment, or issue an
exec order making killing a cop a death penalty offense. In other
words, there is no case.


Lots of people have raised the issue going back into 2012. That you
remain ignorant of it doesn't change it.

Show us some examples of stories in the media then. I've seen plenty
of stories, all of them focused on the meaning of "natural born" and
not a one bringing up the issue of Cruz's mother meeting the requirements
of having lived in the US for 10 years, 5 after the age of 14 for
Cruz to be a US citizen. If that were the issue, then they would not
be only questioning the natural born part, they would be questioning
if he's a citizen at all.