It is evident from the historical evidence surrounding the NBC issue that the purpose of Article II Sec. I clause 5 was to minimize the likelihood of undue foreign influence on the office of the presidency, PARTICULARLY from a Father owing allegiance to a foreign sovereign. Cuba had a legal claim on Cruz’s allegiance from his birth thru his father, then still a Cuban citizen; no matter how difficult it may have been for them to enforce it. He is a US citizen by a STATUTE passed in 1953, not by virtue of natural law.
US citizenship did not transfer to a child thru the mother untill the passage of the Cable Act in 1934, quite a few years after the ratification of Article II of the constitution. EVERY ONE of the framers of the constitution was ineligible to assume the office of POTUS, save for the grandfather clause in Article II that allowed them to.
The founders relied upon the Emmerich De Vattelian definition from the Law of Nations for the definition of natural born citizen. SCOTUS cites the entire 212th paragraph from that tome to define NBC in their 1814 Venus merchantman decision. You see that definition again in Minor vs Happersett.
I LOVE Cruz. Intellectually and philosophically, he is almost a perfect presidential candidate. He is a patriot who loves his country and would probably be at least as great as Ronald Reagan. Despite that I believe in the rule of law as opposed to the cult of personality. There is NO WAY that I can regard Cruz as Article II eligible.
But if I MUST have an unconstitutional POTUS, let it be one who is otherwise good for the country as opposed to the Marxist usurper enemy alien combatant who currently infests the White Hut.
Thank you both for your erudite replies.