Whistling in the wind my friend. A law repealed has no effect. In statuatory analysis, the new law has intent and by removing the natural born status the 1795 law clearly shows intent to not grant such status.
If one was to use repealed law as a basis for privilege then prior to 1934, I think, Cruz would not have been considered a citizen. How can someone not a citizen be a natural born citizen? Using positive law to justify Cruz’s attempted usurpation can never work, as it was natural law that gave rise to to the requirement.
As predicted, the damage is snowballing for Cruz, republicans are defecting, and if by a miracle he was nominated, Grayson and the libs have and will challenge him on the jus soli argument (with the current usurper getting a pass due to a forged BC.) We will not have the first known foreign born president this election cycle. It is time to move on and stop the damage.
You asked if I would support Cruz? Wholeheartedly, for any office he was qualified, which, unfortunatrly does not include the Presidency. This will be the position of many republican electors.
Respectfully, . . .
Like I said, you have not at all convinced me, and nothing has changed. I’ve also found you to be evasive. You have not answered a direct question on who you support for President, but instead have tried to rewrite my question.
On the Naturalization Act of 1790, I’ve partially given you my comments on it, but I’ll also add that what you deem to be unconstitutional now and absolutely unthinkable to the Constitution writers then was actually the first law of the land for five years.