Did Cruz undergo a naturalization ceremony in order to become a citizen? No. Therefore he is a natural born citizen. The founders didn’t define “natural born citizen” because they wished to allow Congress to define what natural born meant by virtue of the laws it created.
Citizen and ‘natural born citizen’ aren’t the same.
***
Yes, Cruz is a
citizen
of the United States, but he is not a
natural born citizen
because he
was neither born “within the jurisdiction of the U
nited States†nor “of parents [plural!]
not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty.†R
afael Edward “Ted†Cruz was born in
Calgary, Canada, and his father was a citizen of Cu
ba at the moment of his birth. By no
stretch of the imagination can one claim Cruz was b
orn on U.S. soil
and
to
two
U.S.
citizen parents. In fact, Cruz was born with dual c
itizenship: U.S. and Canadian. (Some
might even argue that he was also born with Cuban c
itizenship.)
In the 1885 U.S. Supreme Court case
Minor v. Happersett
, Chief Justice Morrison Waite
wrote, “The Constitution does not, in words, say wh
o shall be natural-born citizens.
Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At
common-law, with the nomenclature
of which the framers of the Constitution were famil
iar, it was never doubted that all
children born in a country
of parents who were its citizens
[italics added] became
themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These
were natives, or natural-born citizens, as
distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some autho
rities go further and include as
citizens children born within the jurisdiction with
out reference to the citizenship of their
parents. As to this class there have been doubts, b
ut never as to the first.†That is, there
was agreement by all legal scholars in 1885 that th
e term natural born citizen meant
“born in the United States to two U.S.-citizen pare
nts.†(A minority argued that the
citizenship of the parents was not material but, wi
thout justification, Obama supporters—
and now Cruz supporters—accept the less common interpretation.)
http://thecompleteobamatimeline.com/uploads/3/5/7/4/3574872/whytedcruzis_notanaturalborncitizen.pdf
I've been studying this in more depth today, and my understanding at this point is that the law governing the Cruz situation at his birth was the Naturalization Act of 1952.
That Act required that a child born to an American outside the country would, at the attainment of 18 years of age, be required to swear a loyalty oath to the United States.
This requirement as removed by the 1978 Naturalization Act, before Cruz reached the age of 18.
The point being that the governing law in the case of Cruz has always been our laws concerning naturalization.
Did you ever consider they might have assumed the meaning was quite clear to all. At the time, and I am surprised the issue was not visited, Vattel was the recognized expert in international law and even the title of his treatise mentions natural law.His theories laid the foundation of modern international law and political philosophy. He was also a Diploma and a Philosopher. George Washington, John Jay, and Benjamin Franklin attest to his influence on the founding Fathers. Blackstone published An Analyses of the laws of England in 1756. Vattel published in 1758.
Wrong.
the founders knew and understood exactly the meaning of NBC, because, in the common law of the time, it was defined by Vattel is his treaties ‘The Law of Nations’ Book 1 ...
http://www.constitution.org/vattel/vattel_01.htm
CHAP. XIX.
OF OUR NATIVE COUNTRY, AND SEVERAL THINGS THAT RELATE TO IT.
§ 212. Citizens and natives.
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. 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.
Here is the golden sentence:
“The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”
Every single author of the U.S. Constitution understood this definition, AND THAT IS THE REASON IT WAS USED ... Unlike the “uber-intellectual” fools of today, who think they are smarter than the founders and dismiss or else pervert and to the point of absurdity the very natural purpose for having such a phrase.
Did Cruz undergo a naturalization ceremony in order to become a citizen? No. Therefore he is a natural born citizen.
Your logic tree indicates that each and every anchor baby born in Laredo is qualified to assume the office of the President or Vice President. Correct?
(In reality, true, they are born “citizens,”( Do not require Naturalization) But not “Natural Born” because their parents are not US citizens).