[John Valentine]

Tribe; "On the other hand, to the kind of judge that I admire and Cruz abhors - a ‘living constitutionalist’ who believes that the constitution’s meaning evolves with the needs of the time - Cruz would ironically be eligible because it no longer makes sense to be bound by so narrow and strict a definition."

The patrilineal thesis that Tribe is espousing was indeed the rule in 1789. It is no longer, but that is not because of any 'living constitution' bullcrap.

It is because of the 14th Amendment.

[Godebert]

The patrilineal thesis that Tribe is espousing was indeed the rule in 1789. It is no longer, but that is not because of any 'living constitution' bullcrap. It is because of the 14th Amendment.

In defining what an Article II natural born Citizen is, we do not seek to read into the Constitution that which was not intended and written there by the Framers. Despite popular belief, the Fourteenth Amendment does not convey the status of "natural born Citizen" in its text nor in its intent. Some add an implication to the actual wording of the Fourteenth Amendment by equating the amendment's "citizen" to Article II's "natural born Citizen." But nowhere does the 14th Amendment confer "natural born citizen" status. The words simply do not appear there, but some would have us believe they are implied. But the wording of the Amendment is clear in showing that it confers citizenship only and nothing more.

Neither the 14th Amendment nor Wong Kim Ark make one a Natural Born Citizen