What you refer to was never a complete "definition" on my part. It was an analysis of the origin of the term.
And historically, that's how it went.
When the term was coined, it referred only to those born within the country (which at that time was England).
As the centuries went by, the English refined the term and expanded it to include those who were born subjects of the realm by virtue of being born to subject parents abroad.
It started, in fact, with royal progeny born abroad. For some pretty obvious reasons, they were considered "natural born subjects" of the realm as well.
As time went on, the children born abroad of less royal members of the realm were added in as well.
And exactly which of these foreign-born children were considered to be born members of the realm in spite of their foreign birth, was given over to Parliament to decide.
Hence the precedent that OUR parliament - CONGRESS - had the discretion to decided which FOREIGN-BORN children were to be counted as natural born citizens (and thus eligible to the Presidency).
But they kept the term of art, even though they expanded the meaning of the term, because that's the wording that everybody was familiar with.
It all makes quite perfect sense if you look at the historical development of the law.
Because it's not JUST a legal term. It's a HISTORICAL legal term.
Someone didn't sit down one day and say, "Hey. I'm going to make up a new legal term, and set its meaning, and from now on its meaning is going to be set just exactly as I originally dictate it."
Even if they had, the meaning of terms often changes somewhat over centuries.
History makes sense if you consider the HISTORY of it.
History does not make sense if you refuse to consider... HISTORY.
Was Ted Cruz a jus soli citizen of Canada?
Probably. And it doesn't matter in the slightest.
All the evidence is that the Founders and Framers WERE NOT uptight about the idea of some other country extending citizenship to one of our potential Presidential candidates, or about such a candidate having had a non-citizen parent. Just as long as he was a US citizen at birth.
Again, 3 of our first 4 Presidents were dual citizens... while serving as President.
And the first Republican ever to run for President, did so proudly as the son of a French non-citizen.
In both cases, nobody cared.
And THAT is the history of the term, and it's the meaning of the term.
Again, Chief Justice John Marshall indicated that he agreed with Bayard's assessment that a "citizen by birth" was all it took to be a "natural born citizen."
Now, you take all of these facts, and everything that all of our most authoritative early legal sources said, and everything the court cases we have say, and put it all together, and guess what?
It's consistent.
Not 100%, of course. When you're dealing with history, there's always going to be someone who says otherwise than the generally agreed-upon understanding of history.
There are people, for example, who say the Holocaust never happened.
There are people who say the moon landings were faked.
There are people who say Jesus never lived.
But about 98% of all of it is consistent.
And no, I really do not think that's an exaggeration. Because I'm not counting fallacious arguments and hot air and BS that is OBVIOUS BS.
I AM counting people who said something like what birthers believe, but who weren't really authorities.
That's about 2% of it.
The rest of it all agrees.
And it all agrees on this: If you've been born a US citizen, then legally, you're a "natural born citizen."
But they kept the term of art, even though they expanded the meaning of the term, because that's the wording that everybody was familiar with.
Applying your standard: Congress has decided which foreign born children are to be counted as natural born citizens - NONE. There is no current statute specifying who, born outside the country, is to be considered a natural born citizen. Every statute regarding that class specifies “citizen”.
There you go again.
Article II specifies “citizen” at the time of adoption of the constitution, and “natural born citizen” thereafter.
The terms have distinct meanings. Contending that "citizen" and "natural born citizen" do not have distinct meanings creates a redundancy and would be pointless.
“Citizen” necessarily encompasses “naturalized citizen” as well as “natural born citizen”.
If a "born US citizen" by naturalization statute was (as you contend) Article II eligible as a "natural born citizen" what would be the point of Article II's distinction of "citizen" and "natural born citizen"?
Conflating "born a citizen" with “natural born citizen” is an impermissible construction.
Jeff, the Reason I think you are employed by some Republican Agency is because you keep getting sliced up into giblet meat, yet you keep coming back and spouting things that you know are wrong, have been beaten down on repeatedly, and would embarrass any non-employee to have to address once more.
You see, when someone is being paid to lie and misrepresent for the political benefit of their employers, they just don't care what is the truth. They will continuously repeat discredited claims, and they will continue soliciting the naive to follow their chain of pseudo arguments so as to sway them towards their established goal.
It is evident in the 2008 election that the Republican Party officials wanted no discussion of the correct meaning of "natural born citizen." They and others who followed them went to great efforts to spike any discussion of the issue, and they employed any and all efforts and allies to insure that no real discussion would be permitted to take place.
Having signed on to this position so as to promote the political expedience represented by John McCain, they are now in the position of having several other prominent Republicans who would get tripped up by a correct understanding and application of Article II.
Given that this group has basically agreed to Democratic Principles of Lying to get what they want politically, it is not a far fetched idea that they would send out teams of people to engage troublemakers such as myself, so as to cloud the issue and divert attention from it.
Again, I name you an Agent Provocateur for the Republican Establishment, and not someone who is interested in discussing this issue honestly. You are doing a Job, as far as I can tell.