The Constitution uses a vague term that they do not define.
Note that they were specific enough about the age of eligibility, rather than using some vague term like “mature”.
The only place in US law that the term “natural born citizen” is defined is (supposedly) in the Naturalization Act of 1790, which states:
“And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens”
This provision is vague, either intentionally or inadvertently.
If it said “A child of citizens of the United States”, then the meaning would be clear. But it doesn’t say that. So that law, which isn’t in effect anyway, doesn’t clear up the issue. It would need to be argued in court.
I believe there are only three possibilities...
Non-citizen
Naturalized citizen
Natural Born citizen
I don’t believe there is any dispute that Cruz is a citizen. If there is any evidence that he was naturalized at any point in his life, I haven’t seen it.
By elimination, that leaves only one possibility.
The Rats will never challenge Cruz in court on this issue because it opens up Obama’s can of worms.
But I wouldn’t put it past the GOP-E to try, being the scumbags that they have proven themselves to be.
good argument. i change my vote. he is eligible... as long as joe biden is his vp.
that way, no one on either side will impeach him.
Look at this thread. The Democrats will never challenge Cruz's eligibility because there are more than enough Republicans who will do it for them.