Why I’m even taking the time here... This is not hard, it’s actually easy, so maybe even you can get it. . You’re right, meanings of words change. But what is more important? That when we actually KNOW what was meant when a contract was created that we stay true to that spirit? Or, that when words change we go back and CHANGE the actual intended meaning? Does that make sense to you? Now, natural-born actually DID mean something in the late 1800’s. It’s meaning was known to everyone who created the social compact called the Constitution. If we now go back, and make it mean something different, then the contract is null and void. It makes NO SENSE to change the MEANING of a contract. If you don’t like the Constitution it was designed to be changed in a multiple of different ways.
Now, if you don’t agree with the above, then there is no need to go any further. Why? Because there is no sensible perch on which logic and reason can land in your mind. So why should I have a discussion with you? But, if you agree that the meaning used by the framers was important, then all that we need to do is discover what the word meant at that time (and still means today by the way).
Bouvier’s and Black’s law dictionaries are the tools that lawyers use to discover the actual meanings of legal terms. Regardless of the slow progression of word meanings changing, they cannot therefore be used contemporaneously to rewrite history, meaning, law, contracts, and even constitutions.
Natural-born was the term used, for a REASON. Why? Why not just say, for instance.. CITIZEN? It was because the founders did NOT want just a citizen to be president. They wanted someone who had NATURAL allegiance to a country. Therefore they wanted someone who not only was a citizen, but he or she would also be born of citizens, and born in the country he or she would call home. These circumstances imbue natural citizenship that cannot be modified by statutes. And these circumstances ALSO create a person with natural affinity for the country of their birth.
The proof that this is important IS Obama, regardless of where he was actually born. His affinity is questionable because of his actions. And it is clear that his actions are the result of the things WE KNOW. Father, NOT an American. NOT born in the busom of the country. Raised in Indonesia. These we KNOW for sure. And these are enough to divide loyalties.
So... I love Ted Cruz. But Ted Cruz cannot legally be President. Why we would want to push him forward is mindlessly foolish considering the possibilities.