Except that “law” has not fixed what the meaning of “natural born citizen” actually means. None of the case citations typically presented in these arguments are binding as to that definition. All dicta, no ratio decidendi. Vattell’s definition is not in the constitutional text. The opinions dealing with various citizenship issues have never had to decide, not even once, whether a person is NBC for purposes of constitutional office. Much of the legal academic opinion that is cited here refers to the more certain cases, but does not exclude the edge cases.
On top of all this, if the founder’s opinion of the matter is of any importance, the one time they spoke on the matter statutorily, in the 1790 Naturalization Act, they, the founders, approved of a foreign born child born to one citizen parent as being a natural born citizen.
Furthermore, because Congress and the electorate provide an adequate means of determining candidate eligibility, very likely no court up the chain will be interested in taking this case, as any conclusion they produce will likely be stuck down in SCOTUS as wrongly taking up a nonjusticeable political question.
So as I’ve said many times now, if folks want to nail this down, waiting for the judiciary to do it is a nonstarter. You’d have to do it by passing a constitutional amendment, something for the Article 5 Convention folks to consider.
Peace,
SR
Tell me if this
is what would be the most central, uh, controlling legal authority that would be quite difficult, if not impossible to surmount, thus leaving Cruz well beyond any serious legal challenge as for his qualification to run for presidential office.