[Godebert]

Our founders were clearly well aware of Vattel and the principles of Jus Soli and Jus Sanguinis but it's not 100% clear that they accepted his definition of NBC in its entirety. What seems quite clear to me is that the English common law understanding of NBC was widely accepted at the time of the signing of Declaration of Independence and at the adoption of the Constitution and that NBC understanding is that, with few exceptions, any child born within the kings dominion and/or jurisdiction is a natural born English subject. The only difference here is that we prefer to call a subject a citizen. There is A LOT of historical evidence that supports this.

The settled law of the land is that the US President must be a natural born citizen, and that to be a natural born citizen, you must have been born in the United States to parents both of whom were US citizens when you were born.

You may disagree with the goal of the Constitutional Convention, and/or with the means they chose to achieve it. But it's not a technicality, not an anachronism no longer relevant in modern times, nor is it racist. Especially in modern times, it enables persons of any race or ethnic heritage to become President. And it's what the Constitution requires.

You may also disagree with binding precedent regarding the meaning of "natural born citizen" as established in Minor. But in our system, the Constitution, and the Supreme Court's interpretation of it, are the "supreme law of the land." And if one faction gets to disregard the Constitution and/or the Supreme Court because they disagree, then that sets a precedent where all other factions can do the same.

Any Argument Against the Natural Law Definition of "Natural Born Citizen" Can easily be Defeated Here

TO: RC one, Read the part of the article in the above link to see why your English Common Law argument just doesn't hold water.

[RC one]

I don't have time to give that article the time it warrants right now. I will read it later and say that I agree with you and actually hope that I am wrong in my opinion; however, there's a lot of evidence to support a simple common law understanding and my research has yielded little to nothing to suggest that a Jus Sanguinis element was also required. I think both elements should be present but I don't know that that opinion would hold up.

I think, for our purposes, it is unnecessary to resolve this dilemma as Ted Cruz clearly meets neither definition and, as I have shown, is a NBC of Canada in accordance with Canadian law and the English common law.

Ultimately, this argument is just one part of the madness contained in the Pandora's box that Ted Cruz is attempting to open. There is another aspect as well.