No I do not, because that is not a historical fact. What you are doing is taking a certain class of individuals who are without question natural born citizens and making that class exclusive, when it never was. The truth is that there has always been controversy about who is and who is not a natural born citizen, because there was no single standard, even at the time the Constitution was framed.
This is a can that has been kicked down the road for over 200 years.
There are a range of indicia that can and have been used to determine whether or not the individual in question can be considered a natural born citizen, including, but not limited to the citizenship of the parent(s) and the place of birth. The common law of England emphasized the place of birth, but that view was generally rejected by the framers, despite English common law still governing in many of the States. The 'Law of Nations' emphasized the citizenship of the parent(s), for as Vattel said, the condition of the children is bequeathed to them by their parents. To quote Vattel: "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."
There is no valid historical justification for amalgamating these two concepts, despite much confused and contradictory case law and dicta.
It is quite clear which indicia the Framers preferred.
Further, it is well within the sovereign right of We the People acting through our legislative representatives in Congress, to define the indicia we choose for the purpose of determining - not granting, and not redefining - those considered holding natural born citizenship.
This is nothing at all different to the way we set standards and indicia to be used for the purpose of determining who is and who is not a 'resident' of a particular State. This is done by statute and these statutes are subject to change and States are not held to enforce the indicia used in 1787.
And, Congress has indeed defined the indicia to be used to determine those who are considered to be citizens by birth, aka natural born citizens in 8 US Code 1401. Open and shut. Case closed.
All statute law is subservient to, and (should be) reliant upon the Constitution. Any law that is repugnant to the Constitution is without force, and is invalid on its face.
You quote Vattel, yet curiously don’t seem to follow his reasoning that the child’s citizenship derives from their father’s.
Even if you only accept that one excerpt, you then concede that Ted Cruz is not eligible, due to his father’s citizenship at his birth.
“No I do not, because that is not a historical fact. What you are doing is taking a certain class of individuals who are without question natural born citizens and making that class exclusive, when it never was. The truth is that there has always been controversy about who is and who is not a natural born citizen, because there was no single standard, even at the time the Constitution was framed.”
Totally and utterly wrong. On the contrary, subjects made and citizens made have always been naturalized. There has never been a time when subjects-made and citizens made have not been naturalized.