The Constitution *is* law. Original intent is the way to read the Constitution.
I like Cruz. I like his politics. I like his style. There is just no way he passes the intent of the Natural Born Citizen requirement.
The man has a Canadian birth certificate.
Everything you need to know about natural-born citizenship in accordance to Article II was answered simply, elegantly and DECISIVELY (because the court was unanimous) in Minor v. Happersett. The litigant claimed to be a citizen through the operation of the 14th amendment, assuming that gave her a right to vote, but the court rejected this argument because there were ways to become citizens WITHOUT needing the 14th amendment. It specifically pointed to Article II use of the term natural-born citizen and then defined that term through an exclusive set of criteria.
Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides [n6] that "no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President," [n7] and that Congress shall have power "to establish a uniform rule of naturalization." Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words "all children" are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as "all persons," and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.
Under the power to adopt a uniform system of naturalization Congress, as early as 1790, provided "that any alien, being a free white person," might be admitted as a citizen of the United States, and that the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under twenty-one years of age at the time of such naturalization, should also be considered citizens of the United States, and that the children of citizens of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as natural-born citizens. [n8] These provisions thus enacted have, in substance, been retained in all the naturalization laws adopted since. In 1855, however, the last provision was somewhat extended, and all persons theretofore born or thereafter to be born out of the limits of the jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were, or should be at the time of their birth, citizens of the United States, were declared to be citizens also. [n9]
Above, Minor explores every known way to become a citizen of the United States, but it only characterizes one set of criteria as natural-born citizen, which is "all children born in the country to parents who were ITS citizens." I've emphasized that the parents must be citizens of the country. It doesn't allow the parents to be citizens of just any country. The parents have to be citizen of ITS country, in this case, citizens of the United States.
Second, the court quotes the 1790 nationality act that declares children born of citizens of the United States (again, this specifies the entire parentage that qualifies the children for citizenship) to be "considered as" natural-born citizens, but the court clarifies that this falls under Congress' power to adopt uniform rules of naturalization. This provision was temporary and the natural-born citizen terminology was removed from subsequent naturalization acts so there is no remaining controlling effect of this type of declaratory language on anyone born outside of the country.
But, it doesn't really matter because a later unanimous Supreme Court decision said that Article II eligibility is tied specifically to the native part of Minor's definition, which as shown above is only children born to citizen parents. Some people want to believe that other decisions defined Article II eligibility, but the 1913 Luria decisions points first to Minor and not to the other popular decision, U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, at all.
Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 88 U. S. 165; Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94, 112 U. S. 101; Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 22 U. S. 827.
The elegant part of this is that the Minor court ruled out that 14th amendment citizens can be considered to be natural-born citizens. This was affirmed in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark.
In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that."
This gives us a postive declaration of who can be a natural-born citizen, a negative declaration that excludes other citizens at birth (via the 14th amendment), and an affirmation that Minor's citizenship ruling pertains directly to Article II eligibility. Only the children born in the U.S. of ITS citizens can be natural-born citizens.