Ted Cruz’s birther problem grows as more constitutional law scholars say he can’t be president
An increasing number of high-profile constitutional law professors, including one of Cruz's own professors from Harvard Law School, have in recent days argued publicly that Cruz's birth disqualifies him.
"t's all in how you read the Constitution," wrote Thomas Lee, a professor of constitutional and international law at Fordham University, in an op-ed published in the Los Angeles Times Sunday:
There are three leading theories of how to interpret the Constitution today. One is textualism: The Constitution means what its words say. The historical context of the words is important when a modern plain meaning is not self-evident. A second theory, adopted by many liberals, relies on a "living Constitution": the Constitution means what is most consistent with fundamental constitutional values as applied to present circumstances. The third theory, championed by many leading conservatives, is originalism: The Constitution means what ordinary people would have understood it to mean at the time it was ratified, in 1788.
According to Lee, two legal theories of citizenship were popular at the time the Constitution was ratified: jus soli (Latin for "law of the land), which held that a child's citizenship flowed from the actual, physical place of his birth, and jus sanguinis ("law of the blood"
, which held that parents passed their citizenship to their children. However, Lee argues, at the time the Constitution was ratified, jus sanguinis applied only to patrilineal descent.
"However odious it seems today, a child born of a woman whose citizenship was different from her husband's—much rarer then than today—could not be a 'natural born Citizen' of the mother's country. That idea wasn't even considered until 1844 in Victorian England."
Mary Brigid McManamon, a constitutional law professor at Widener University, made a similar argument in The Washington Post Tuesday. "In this election cycle, numerous pundits have declared that Cruz is eligible to be president," she writes. "They rely on a supposed consensus among legal experts. This notion appears to emanate largely from a recent comment in the Harvard Law Review Forum by former Solicitors General Neal Katyal and Paul Clement. In trying to put the question of who is a natural-born citizen to rest, however, the authors misunderstand, misapply and ignore the relevant law."
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/01/more-constitutional-law-scholars-say-ted-cruz-cant-be-president/
= new reply since forum marked as read
be truthful she needs a background check before she purchases a weapon 
To say nothing about the money. Heh heh heh.
it still won't matter. 
This nuttiness needs to be flushed.
The Constitution sees only two categories - natural born citizens and "naturalized" citizens.
Nothing in the common law or legislative history at the time supports that theory, and therefore the rules of statutory interpretation preclude it. The rules of constitutional interpretation also provide that a possible statutory interpretation is void if it would conflict with the Constitution. The rules of statutory interpretation also provide that a valid interpretation should not introduce different meanings of the same words or terms in the legislation being interpeted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_interpretation
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/overview
Here is the Article I, Section 8 text:
To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;
Here is the Article II, Section I text:
There is nothing in the Constitution or the legislative history or the Common Law which would allow the creation of a third category for the purposes of interpretation of the Constitution.
The idea that the Constitution knows only two classes of citizens - natural-born and acquired - is reinforced because of the different prescription for Senators in Article I, Section 3:
Lastly, the "fourteen Years a resident", which is not time-limited (subject to the "at the time of the adoption of this Constitution"
, shows that the framers considered that a person could be a natural-born citizen having been born abroad or having lived many years abroad, which matches well with the common law of the time.
So, that is an additional, enduring requirement for eligibility for the Presidency. A person could be a natural born citizen of the ages of thirty-five years who had not lived in the United States for at least fourteen years.
This is a nonsensical argument, IMO.
basically daring SCOTUS to elevate the lout to the Presidency. 
Don't be Orly Taitz, people.
deny my fellow Canadian the chance to run. 
