I think they will “Punt it” because the establishment would have to admit they F***ED up with vetting Obama, and if they Kick Cruz out they would have to take Obama with him.
Personally I think the term “Natural Born” means you obtain your citizenship “By Blood” rather than “By Soil” or “By Process” (ie. Naturalization from another country”.
I also think the constitution gave congress the power to write legislation covering the conditions of citizenship and how to apply it. Which if so Obama is ineligible because his mother was too young to convey blood citizenship via the law in effect at the time he was born. Paradoxically if Cruz is eligible due to this law, then Obama is not.
“Soil Citizenship” was the norm during the time of Kings and Emperors to “claim subjects” under THEIR control if they were born on THEIR land.
The Progressives LOVE “Soil Citizenship” because it is a direct endorsement of the process of “Anchor Babies” and they crave adding more Subjects to control and to have them vote for their power. It also make Obama that more Legitimate to claim Soil Citizenship with him supposedly being born in Hawaii.
The famous English legal scholar, Sir William Blackstone (1723-1780), on the subject (boldface added):
When I say, that an alien is one who is born out of the king's dominions, or allegiance, this also must be understood with some restrictions. The common law indeed stood absolutely so; with only a very few exceptions: so that a particular act of parliament became necessary after the restoration, for the naturalization of children of his majesty's English subjects, born in foreign countries during the late troubles. And this maxim of the law proceeded upon a general principle, that every man owes natural allegiance where he is born, and cannot owe two such allegiances, or serve two masters, at once. Yet the children of the king's embassadors born abroad were always held to be natural subjects: for as the father, though in a foreign country, owes not even a local allegiance to the prince to whom he is sent; so, with regard to the son also, he was held (by a kind of postliminium) to be born under the king of England's allegiance, represented by his father, the embassador. To encourage also foreign commerce, it was enacted by statute 25 Edw. III. st. 2. that all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at the time of the birth in allegiance to the king, and the mother had passed the seas by her husband's consent, might inherit as if born in England: and accordingly it hath been so adjudged in behalf of merchants. But by several more modern statutes these restrictions are still farther taken off: so that all children, born out of the king's ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception; unless their said fathers were attainted, or banished beyond sea, for high treason; or were then in the service of a prince at enmity with Great Britain.
The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such. In which the constitution of France differs from ours; for there, by their jus albinatus, if a child be born of foreign parents, it is an alien.
The founders were very familiar with Blackstone.
The part about "whose fathers" exists to be interpreted away, there being limits to originalism.
You’re absolutely right. Obama’s birther issue was a real issue, because the law at the time with respect to his mother’s status would not have given him citizenship at birth if he wasn’t born on U.S. soil.
We know the law at Cruz’ time says he was natural-born if he was born in Canada, so there’s no issue with Cruz.