“For centuries, the courts have fallen back to the British common law explanation, that a “natural born citizen” is....”
First clue....There are no “Citizens” in Britain, only subjects.
Second clue...The Constitution’s Preamble states that the Constitution is based on Natural Law concepts Not British “Common” (unwritten) Law.
The eligibility question will only be relevant/applied to an “elected” candidate before taking office, otherwise our elections would become clogged with suits every election cycle. I believe that the parties should be vetting their candidates, something those corrupt organizations are now failing to do.
Point of order. The US Constitution did not create US Citizens. US Citizens were created by the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776.
And yes, the Declaration of Independence cites "the laws of Nature and of Nature's God" as their authority to create a new country.
And while i'm at it, I will point out that I have looked at four different English law books from the period prior to 1770, and the word "Citizen" is not even in any of these law books. The word "citizen" appears to be virtually unknown to British Law.
RE: First clue....There are no “Citizens” in Britain, only subjects.
So, you are arguing that people like Paul McCartney or David Cameron are not British Citizens?
RE: The Constitution’s Preamble states that the Constitution is based on Natural Law concepts Not British “Common” (unwritten) Law.
OK, so Cruz’s mother is American. She never lost her citizenship and she was American at the time of Cruz’s birth.
Why does that not accrue to Ted Cruz at birth?