No, I cited a very large chunk of a US Supreme Court opinion.
The common law definition of Natural Born Subject is what created our common law definition of Natural Born Citizen.
There are two ways to be a US citizen - birth, or naturalization. Someone naturalized is allowed to hold any office except President. For President, you must be born a US citizen. And Cruz WAS born a US citizen. As was Obama, sadly. And that is all it takes. If you are a US citizen, and you were not naturalized, then you are a NBC.
By your definition of NBC, a member of the British royal family could come to this country and father/give birth to a child, that child would then be eligible for the presidency and the royal thrown at the same time.
Do you really believe the FF were that stupid?
There it is, clear as a blue-sky day. NBC is the counterpart to citizen at birth. Cruz satisfies the condition as his mother was a US citizen at his birth. It's not that hard to grasp.
At the time of the Revolution the common law of England was “thrown off”..oh sure, some individual states still adhered to it. That was the only law they knew and there was no central government in place yet.
So then the country loosely followed the Articles of Confederation prior to the construction of the Constitution.
Also prior to the Revolution and the Constitution, each state retained it’s own laws on naturalizing citizens. So, basically you were a subject of England but a citizen of a particular colony/state. If you emigrated from a different country and wished to become a citizen, you became a citizen of a state under their own requirements - those varied from state to state. There was no uniform law on naturalization in this country prior to the Constitution.
Being a sovereign nation, our new government looked to international law. On the topic of allegiance English law may have been referenced, but then again so was Roman, as was French. A lot of sorting out had to be done - necessarily - for a full generation after the Constitution. The only time the question of allegiance did not arise was to children born in the US to citizen parentS. A child born to a alien Father, citizen mother may not be able to inherit property through the mother because she took on the nationality of her alien husband at marriage. That had to be addressed so that children of such marriages wouldn’t be disinherited.
BTW, you posted snips, carefully selected snips. Like you left this off;
“The state of the law in the United States is easily
deduced. -The notion that there is any common law
principle to naturalize the children born in foreign
countries, of native-born American father and mother,
father or mother, must be discarded. There is not and
never was any such common law principle.”
That snip asserts that there was NO common law principle or law, prior to all of the Acts that were later passed. The first Act upon this subject was passed in March, 1790. After the Constitution was signed.
That is quite straightforward.
Cruz was born a dual citizen, both American and Canadian. His class of citizenship did not even exist in 1787. Period. I forget what year the Act was passed that gave the U.S. MOTHER the right to pass U.S. citizenship to her child born on foreign land, but prior to that Act it had to be through the Father, and he had to have been a resident of the U.S. Oh, and that child had to declare allegiance at the age of majority. Those Acts don’t make a foreign born US citizen into a natural born citizen, but it gave them the same rights AS a natural born citizen.
And Article ll was NEVER amended. To this day dual citizenship is still not officially recognized in the US.