[Uncle Sham]

Actually, I dwell on the term "natural born citizen" from the Naturalization Act of 1790 being CHANGED to "citizen" when it was repealed by the Naturalization Act of 1795.

Cruz claims that his condition is covered by the Naturalization Act of 1790 yet doesn't mention the fact that his condition is actually covered by the Act which repealed it in 1795.

The term "citizens" as I argue it is correct as any application of this Act would have been. applied on an individual case basis.

[ought-six]

Actually, you don’t. Nowhere in your cite is there a stand-alone term “citizen.” Perhaps if you posted the pertinent section your argument would hold more water.

[cynwoody]

Cruz claims that his condition is covered by the Naturalization Act of 1790 yet doesn't mention the fact that his condition is actually covered by the Act which repealed it in 1795.

The 1790 act demonstrates the original intent of the Framers with respect to the term "natural born citizen". They thought it meant what normal people today think it means: citizen by birth. They had no need to cite obscure Swiss legal experts.

The fact that later laws omit the term "natural born" is irrelevant. The omission of the phrase is understandable, given that "natural born" only pertains to two jobs in the United States.