I asked whether or not the person was naturalized, and your answer says Cruz was a citizen, and a hypothetical Obama would not be. But your answer does not directly say whether Cruz was naturalized.
Also, does it not strike you as "weird" that Congress can make and eliminate NBC's by statute? From the founding of the country until 1934, a US citizen mother married to an alien father could not produce a US citizen on birth abroad, the 1790 act did not make those children citizens (see the Bellei case). What's "natural" about that? Vattel didn't disappear in that interim, only to suddenly reappear in 1934.
-- I am not going to get into a discussion over what the courts say. They can be all over the board. --
I take that as you being unwilling to support your point of view with authority.
It is also telling that you won't give a direct answer to "where do you find jus sanguinis in the constitution?"
I'm held to produce authority for my propositions, and yours are correct just because you say so. That is at best unfair on your part.
Given a choice between case law and unlearner's word, every reasonable person will go with the case law.
“your answer does not directly say whether Cruz was naturalized”
No. He was a citizen at birth. The citizenship was naturally conferred from his mother in accordance with the 1952 act applicable at the time.
“Congress can make and eliminate NBC’s by statute?”
They cannot. See my previous post. Please quit splitting your answers into multiple posts. They grow exponentially when you do that. It makes it impossible for others to follow the discussion.
“a US citizen mother married to an alien father could not produce a US citizen on birth abroad, the 1790 act did not make those children citizens”
No. And again, that law was not in effect for Cruz. That law simply demonstrates that the founders considered the issue within the purview of Congress.
“Vattel didn’t disappear in that interim, only to suddenly reappear in 1934.”
I have already explained this. But I will again in case I was not clear. Vattel did mention “parents” in the plural. But he also specified paternal citizenship being conveyed naturally. Vattel did not change, but the Constitution did. Women can now vote, own property, and hold office. This change occurred at the Constitutional level. So it is reasonable to assume that citizenship of BOTH parents can play a role in conferring natural born citizenship. The 1952 act allows such.
“I take that as you being unwilling to support your point of view with authority.”
Of the courts? Every person who has argued with me over the 1790 act loves to cite courts and other writings and laws that happened much later. I have referenced courts occasionally, but my position is that unless a satisfactory answer to the 1790 act has been made, then all the court rulings in the world do not outweigh the actual founders in their intent. So I do not wish to go down that rabbit trail. It is not because of the “authority” but because of relevancy.
“It is also telling that you won’t give a direct answer to ‘where do you find jus sanguinis in the constitution?’”
I NEVER argued that it was in the Constitution. I explained why I believe the law in 1790 supports that the founders views citizenship to be conferred naturally according to the citizenship of the parents just like Vattel said.
“I’m held to produce authority for my propositions, and yours are correct just because you say so.”
I think the founders’ enacting a naturalization act 18 months after ratifying the Constitution is fairly strong authority.
“every reasonable person will go with the case law”
Case law is significant but not more significant than the founders’ intent which plainly was that natural born citizenship is within the purview of Congress in certain cases.