Cruz may not be legally a Senator, much less a Pres. candidate.

[FBaggins]

133. You obviously didn't read the OP.

Let's take them one at a time:

Canada did not recognize dual citizenship in 1970 when Cruz was born in Alberta.
Irrelevant

The only way Cruz could have been a US citizen was if his mother had filed a document called a Consular Report of Birth Abroad.
Factually inaccurate.

Cruz has never admitted to having that document.
Just like Obama never provided the long-form birth certificate

This is the legal equivalent of a US Birth Certificate and Cruz either has one from the time of his birth or he does not.
Factually inaccurate and irrelevant. A Canadian birth certificate and a US Citizen mother is sufficient.

If he does not then he is not a US Citizen
Still wrong

as he was never naturalized by his own admission
His own "admission"? Laughable. If he had been naturalized, then he wouldn't be natural-born.

and at birth the nation in which he was born did not recognize dual nationality.
Repeating these claims multiple times doesn't make them any more relevant or any less ridiculous. It doesn't matter what Canada's stance on dual citizenship was or is.

With 2 Canadian parents,
Not demonstrated and almost certainly inaccurate.

and being born in Canada in 1970 when Canada did not recognize dual citizen citizenship, he was born Canadian and is not a natural born citizen.
See above.

In 2014, he renounced his Canadian citizenship.thus admitting he WAS a Canadian citizen when he was born.
That means nothing of the sort - and his statement at the time directly refutes any claim that he was "admitting" Canadian citizenship.

and his mother's available voting record was from 1974 BUT the Canadian process for being on the voting registration requires a person to affirm they ARE citizens of Canada, which is then checked by the Voting Registrar.

More birther nonsense. The entire thesis is a massive stretch, but even assuming that it were true proof that his mother was a Canadian citizen years after his birth has no impact on her status at his birth - and again assumes without any evidence that she must have renounced her US citizenship - which the US didn't require.

The entire Gish gallop reads exactly like the original birthers (and, in fact, are the same nonsensical claims that those same birthers also make about Cruz).

On edit -

An originalist interpretation is impossible with this Court?

It's really just teasing a former student. Originalism doesn't really say what Tribe is hinting at. There's really little question what the Founders' "original intent" was in this case because there are contemporaneous writings (as well as existing British Empire usage of the term and what the Founders said that it meant when they codified it just a couple years later).