Two distinct classes of citizens are described here and one is granted a privilege denied to the other. (as previously noted, the 14th amendment reinforces this distinction in its first 5 words).
A natural born citizen, according to the founder's understanding, is someone born on US soil as evidenced by the fact that they described themselves(or at least some of themselves) as citizens at the time of the adoption of the constitution because they had not been born here but, rather at the time of the signing of the declaration of independence, they became naturalized citizens owing full allegiance to the newly formed country.
The authors of the constitution made the distinction, established the eligibility criteria, and incorporated their intent into the supreme law.
The constitution is supreme. Congress is not authorized to broadly redefine elements of the constitution that would fundamentally alter the meanings and applications of the supreme law. That would not be consistent with the constitutional Republican form of government they had formed. Congress is fully bound by the constitution just like the rest of us.
So, Ted Cruz can cite title 8 all he likes. title 8 never once strings the words natural born citizen together which, any reasonable person would agree, it must do if it intends to act upon article II, section I, clause 5.
We have already determined that the authors of the constitution recognized Natural Born Citizenship as distinct from Citizenship by incorporating the language into the constitution. So, citizen at birth means just that-citizen at birth, not Natural Born Citizen at birth.
“What were the Founding Fathers afraid of?”
Obama.
Natural born was intended to keep foreign nobility from gaining control of the executive branch.
If you still owe allegiance to a foreign country by naturalization or birth, you aren’t a natural born citizen.
The Framers of the Constitution believed that a child born in the U.S. by two citizen parents was considered a natural born citizen. I believe this to be a fact given the history of that time. This term was specifically used to prevent a child growing up with two national allegiances either, by where they were born or, of parents with conflicting national allegiances. With the situation with the British at that time, you can understand their fear of the British undermining their great new nation through an allegiance situation in the highest office in the land. For example, let’s say JFK had a Cuban father and a American mother. What would have happened with the Cuban missile crisis if JFK thought it was OK for Cuba to have Soviet missiles? If he had a Cuban father, he might have had a sentiment for his Cuban father and let Cuba have their Soviet missiles.
Folks, this is not rocket science.
They were afraid of a Canadian invasion, eh?
This is just brilliant on the parts of Cruz and Trump. No better way to clean the historical slate of the past seven years of usurpation, than to have the liberals lay out the case, and demand it be enforced.
You can stop right there. Congress gave no definition.
Original intent requires you to look into what natural born meant in British common law prior to the Constitution, which should tell you what they thought it meant when they used the term to provide some security for the fledgling country against intentional exploitation by a foreign power.
If you do that you will most certainly see that your definition is incomplete and therefor wrong.
The definition in common law does not exclude foreign born with a citizen Father. natural born is defined not as a place, but as a status that is transferrable from father to son. In some cases the old common law writings mentioned both birthright citizenship, which is a place, and conferred citizenshipwhich is a status and not dependant on place, but the status of the parent.
Constitutionally, in more modern times the exclusion of the mother would be unconstitutional due to the equal protection rights that came with constitutional status for women.
Thus Ted Cruz received his status from his mother, a natural born citizen of the US.
Original intent also forces you to conclude that this was all about national security at the time. Children of British expats in the US, born in the US would be natural born citizens if your definition was valid. So what kind of security would that be?
In addition to conferring natural born status, the parent needed to have resided in the US for 14 years prior, and needed to be of majority age. (21years)
This provided the country with enough security to nearly guarantee that a foreign power would not easily exploit the natural born citizen, a prerequisite to run for office as president of the US.
To be pedantic about it, and sometimes being pedantic is how the law operates, see Art IV, Sec. 2.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
"The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country."
In modern times, when both mothers and fathers are equally respected as bequeathers of citizenship at birth, this paragraph must be read as follows:
"The country of the father or the mother is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father or a mother who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country."
Applying this to Ted Cruz, it is readily seen that Vattel would reject Canada as a natural sovereignty for Cruz; in Vattel's opinion, Canada would be 'only the place of his birth, and not his country'. Whereas, with respect to the United States, Vattel concludes that 'the country of the father or the mother is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent.' Everyone, please, meet Ted Cruz, Natural Born Citizen of the United States of America.
I thought they were afraid of Alexander Hamilton, for one.
In Colonial Days, the Brits were equally concerned with national loyalties. My Swiss forebears arrived in Philadelphia on the ship “Friendship”, Captain John Thompson, out of Rotterdam, on November 9, 1750.
Being Germanic peoples, their first requirement was to be marched to City Hall and “Certified”. This entailed disavowing any Germanic allegiances and swearing allegiance to King George III.
Shortly after the above Certification, Grandpa Hans was granted Warrant Rights to 50 acres of land in York Township, York County, PA, by the Penns. And they all lived happily ever after.
Our worst presidents fit your description of NBC. Didn’t stop them from being the worst presidents or holding allegiances to foreign nations.
***foreigners were disloyal***
I believe they wanted people who were culturally AMERICAN.
Ted Cruz is culturally AMECRICAN!
Obama is culturally Indonesian moslem.
They were afraid of a person with constitutional presidential powers possibly having a divided allegiance.