Natural Born citizen already has a definition, derived from Natural Law, well known to the founding fathers. That is why they provided no definition for it in the constitutional text itself. It's meaning was common knowledge.
Hmmm...
I wonder if Trump has accidentally stumbled onto something here?
Or if he has some advisers who clued in on this?
Which is documented where?
I agree totally, “natural born” was a common term used by nearly everyone in one context or another when I was a child, it was even used in comic strips having nothing to do with the question of presidential qualifications. We were taught in school that to be eligible for the presidency a person had to be born in America of TWO parents who were citizens. This was not even questionable as far as our teachers were concerned at that time. Anyone who tried to claim that someone born in Canada of an American citizen mother and a father who was NOT an American citizen would have been laughed at. I am NOT anti-Cruz, this is just the facts.
I hope I don’t get a lot of return comments from all these people on FR who “know” that I am crazy, it just seems that a lot of people “know” a lot about the NBC question that isn’t true. The question is far from being settled to the point that would prevent the left from challenging Ted Cruz if he wins the nomination. The idea that citizen at birth and natural born citizen necessarily mean the exact same thing is wrong but some seem to think that anyone who is a citizen period is a natural born citizen as if someone could be made natural born by naturalization.
Natural Law has nothing to say about citizenship—because the TEN COMMANDMENTS have nothing to say about citizenship.