Taking a closer look at your irrelevant quotes, they don't even claim what you say they claim. The nation was just being birthed. Even the founding fathers-- not all of whom were born in the US-- were grandfathered in as natural born citizens by special act. It does not follow that anyone could be declared a "natural born citizen" by an act of congress. It would destroy its meaning.
Wrong again.
It's correct, as you admit in the next sentence by implication:
As I have already pointed out, Parliament had the right to change the definition of NBS,
In other words, you admit that when the Constitution was written, the definition of natural born citizen would have eliminated Cruz from the Presidency, just as I stated it did. Your argument, however, is that Congress can change the definition of natural born citizen, even though the Constitution gives them no such power to begin with. IOW, your argument is vain from the get go.
Just like how women needed a Constitutional amendment in order to gain the right to vote, a constitutional amendment is needed to change the definition of Natural Born citizen.
Proof you are STUPID. Or a LIAR. Or both.
Pffft, please, you're position is weak so you lash out. You are an imbecile.
” Even the founding fathers— not all of whom were born in the US— were grandfathered in as natural born citizens by special act.”
Not true. The “grandfather clause” allowed naturalized citizens to become President since many of them had fought in the Revolution. You need to do some studying, preferably somewhere other than at Vattel worship sites.
“It does not follow that anyone could be declared a “natural born citizen” by an act of congress. It would destroy its meaning.”
Not true. The meaning of “natural born subject” was defined by Parliament, and changed by Parliament several times. Since it is the basis for the meaning of NBC - having been used interchangeably with it, and as long since ruled by the Supreme Court - the definition of NBC could be adjusted by the legislature, unless the Constitution forbade it. And it did not.
That WAS the original understanding by the people who drafted the Constitution and who approved it.
The right to bear “arms”, in 1787, meant muskets. It now means certain guns, but not bombs or missiles. It does not include ALL guns, which is why the assault weapon banned was ruled legal. The definition of “arms” is subject to Congress, and we are not limited to the arms used in 1787.
Unless the Constitution said otherwise, the accepted meaning of NBC included the right to define it by the legislature. And the Constitution did not say otherwise. So yeah, Congress has the right, which it has used very gently, only adding that citizenship can pass thru the mother’s side if the mother has spent enough time living in the USA.