To sum up,because I must leave in 5 min...
If you read through that Federalist blog post and were to accept what is says particularly regarding the 14th amendment.
My assertions are no different with one exception. I take into account the equal protection clause that came with the right to vote and legally contract the US constitution now guarantees to women.
In my view, that made Ted’s mother a legal grantee or transferee of her status to her son at birth.
If you look closely at it, you will see that it actually distinguishes between two types of Americans-American citizens that were born in the United States and Americans that weren't born in the United States just like Article II, section I, clause 5.
First 9 words. Read them a few times:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States
All persons born or naturalized in the United States
All persons born or naturalized in the United States
All persons born or naturalized in the United States
All persons born or naturalized in the United States
All persons born or naturalized in the United States
This is important because they had defined such a person as a natural born citizen in the act of 1790. That they repealed this definition and changed it to citizen tells us that the location of birth was important enough to cause a change in their definition. The result is that whatever they thought a natural born citizen was at the time, it WAS NOT someone born outside of United States jurisdiction.
Would you be equally committed to your position if Cruz had been born in Texas and Trump in Scotland?
You make the fatal flaw by introducing equal protection but not maintaining the purpose of avoiding divided loyalty. If it’s to be father and mother, it’s both/and not either/or.