One universal point most all early publicists agreed on was natural-born citizen must mean one who is a citizen by no act of law. If a person owes their citizenship to some act of law (naturalization for example), they cannot be considered a natural-born citizen. This leads us to defining natural-born citizen under the laws of nature – laws the founders recognized and embraced.
Under the laws of nature, every child born requires no act of law to establish the fact the child inherits through nature his/her father’s citizenship as well as his name (or even his property) through birth. This law of nature is also recognized by law of nations. Sen. Howard said the citizenship clause under the Fourteenth Amendment was by virtue of “natural law and national law.â€
The advantages of Natural Law is competing allegiances between nations are not claimed, or at least with those nations whose custom is to not make citizens of other countries citizens without their consent. Under Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes (1866) made clear other nation’s citizens would not be claimed: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.â€
Rep. John A. Bingham commenting on Section 1992 said it means “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.†(Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))
Ted Cruz's father owed allegiance to a foreign sovereignty. Ted Cruz was not born within the jurisdiction of the United States. Ted Cruz is not a Natural Born Citizen.
Remarking just to point out that the analysis proceeds from a negative, "not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty." This is counterintuitive to the way people think. People think in terms of what they (or their parents) HAVE, not it terms of what haven't got.
Many things "shake out" in a way that most people find agreeable and comfortable, when the framework described by Bingham is applied. It takes care of anchor baby "natural born citizens," citizenship of children born to US citizens abroad (although I think the existence of the 1790 Act ironically makes that case HARDER, not easier).
Trying to state the principle in positive terms (what somebody has) instead of negative terms (what they don't have) results in some fairly interesting rhetorical gymnastics.
[[The Supreme Court has long recognized that two particularly useful sources in understanding constitutional terms are British common law3×
3. See Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465, 478 (1888).
and enactments of the First Congress.4×
4. See Wisconsin v. Pelican Ins. Co., 127 U.S. 265, 297 (1888).
Both confirm that the original meaning of the phrase “natural born Citizen” includes persons born abroad who are citizens from birth based on the citizenship of a parent.]]
http://harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/on-the-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen/
The above is what gave congress the ‘right’ to define natural born citizenship after the fact
[[No doubt informed by this longstanding tradition, just three years after the drafting of the Constitution, the First Congress established that children born abroad to U.S. citizens were U.S. citizens at birth, and explicitly recognized that such children were “natural born Citizens.†]]
This required TWO parents I believe In the early adoption- however, later, it was whittled down to ONE parent- with requirements
The article goes on to state the evolving definition and the fact that courts and the supreme court have upheld the issue thus far-
You posted the definition: [[One universal point most all early publicists agreed on was natural-born citizen must mean one who is a citizen by no act of law.]]
Yes- and that refers- according to current NBC advocates- that this simply means the child doesn’t have to be naturalized under the law in order to be a NBC
[[Rep. John A. Bingham commenting on Section 1992 said it means “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.†(Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))]]
That was later refined as mentioned above and the new definition has been upheld by SC and congress’ decision on the issue
As mentioned- we can say yea or nay all day long but it all boils down to what is in effect now, and what has been decided by the courts and the congress- IF there are any questions that linger, such as ‘original intent’ then it needs to be taken to court or decided by congress if it is congress’ duty to do so
[[Ted Cruz’s father owed allegiance to a foreign sovereignty. Ted Cruz was not born within the jurisdiction of the United States. Ted Cruz is not a Natural Born Citizen]]
By law he meets current definitions and requirements for the presidency- as mentioned, it will need to be changed via the courts or congress IF someone wants to prevent him from running-