And I am not going to get into a discussion over what the courts say. They can be all over the board. The only court issue that would matter is what the courts would say right now about Cruz. ...I can't produce any evidence, beyond the fact that the 1790 Act was repealed and replaced by the same people who wrote it (removing the words "natural born" from the naturalization act), that tends to show that there were founders who strongly opposed the first naturalization act on the grounds that it was unconstitutional.Case law is significant but not more significant than the founders' intent which plainly was that natural born citizenship is within the purview of Congress in certain cases ...
If anyone can prove that there were founders who strongly opposed the first naturalization act on the grounds that it was unconstitutional, that would merit consideration.
More particularly, the court cases are no help under your criteria for consideration, because none of the court cases tend to show there were founders who strongly opposed the first naturalization act on the grounds that it was unconstitutional.
The case of Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971) follows a birth pattern similar to Cruz's. US citizen mother, alien father, birth abroad, birth in wedlock. All 9 justices agree that Mr. Bellei (a specific person) was naturalized.
However, taking your criteria literally, the Bellei case sheds no light, first because it doesn't tend to show there were founders who strongly opposed the first naturalization act on the grounds that it was unconstitutional; and second because it doesn't use the phrase "not a natural born citizen."
Most people agree that a naturalized citizen cannot be a natural born citizen, and for those people, a finding that a person is, constitutionally speaking, a naturalized citizen, precludes finding that person to be a natural born citizen. But I do not assume that you agree with this.
I know of and have recently studied seven other (six heard by SCOTUS, one in the 5th Circuit) cases that touch on the subject, invariably operating from the premise that the subject of the lawsuit is or could be a naturalized citizen. The cases where the person is not found to be a naturalized citizen, find the person to be an alien.
Given the factual basis for the cases, I figure that at least several hundred, if not several thousand cases are handled each year, using the same principle of law. The principle of "naturalization" has a pivotal role in deportation cases. Once a higher court decides an issue, that precedent is used many times over in lower courts of law and administrative agencies.
Alas, none of the cases satisfy your criteria for being considered, because none tend to show there were founders who strongly opposed the first naturalization act on the grounds that it was unconstitutional.
That said, I think your criteria for consideration are blinding you to how the law views citizenship of those born abroad. The cases are very informative, and completely uniform on the assignment of "naturalized" to a birth abroad, even across majority and dissent.
“That said, I think your criteria for consideration are blinding you to how the law views citizenship of those born abroad. The cases are very informative, and completely uniform on the assignment of ‘naturalized’ to a birth abroad, even across majority and dissent.”
You made a very good case from court opinions. While I may feel the courts often get it wrong, they are still the courts, and their opinions matter more than someone who is just a citizen with an opinion. At least they do when it comes to making rulings today. They may cite prior court decisions and opinions. They are not likely to cite unlearner on Free Republic.
My opinion, for what it’s worth, is that the courts got it wrong on the 14th amendment. I believe the 14th only applies to those born in the US or naturalized IN the US. I do not agree that all citizenships fall into those two categories. Congress had the authority to pass uniform rules of naturalization before and after the 14th. The 14th may preclude certain acts of Congress in this regard, but power of Congress to grant citizenship to those born outside the US are NOT impacted by the 14th.
I still think that 1790 proves the intent of the founders was that jus sanguinis should prevail on who is a “natural” citizen. Vattel clarified his definition of natural born citizen by adding that children born abroad “naturally” receive the citizenship of their father, including “all” of its rights. In other words, this is not an imperfect naturalization. England operated under jus soli because being a subject had to do with the king’s rights. In America, citizenship is about the citizen’s rights.
In the case of Cruz, his citizenship was conveyed naturally from his mother, and he was a citizen at birth.