Yes, it is.
Article 6, Clause 2
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
'which shall be made in Pursuance thereof'.
The pursuant authority is to make a uniform RULE of Naturalization for the States to follow. (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4) Nowhere is the authority given to 'bestow' citizenship or determine who is or is not what kind of citizen. Thus, anything outside the making of that Rule is contrary to the Constitution.
That a law limited to such objects as may be authorised by the constitution, would, under the true construction of this clause, be the supreme law of the land; but a law not limited to those objects, or not made pursuant to the constitution, would not be the supreme law of the land, but an act of usurpation, and consequently void.
St. George Tucker View of the Constitution
****
shall be the supreme Law of the Land;
For the federal government, not the States OR any People residing outside the area of enumerated jurisdiction.
However true, therefore, it may be, that the judicial department is, in all questions submitted to it by the forms of the Constitution, to decide in the last resort, this resort must necessarily be deemed the last in relation to the authorities of the other departments of the government; not in relation to the rights of the parties to the constitutional compact, from which the judicial, as well as the other departments, hold their delegated trusts. On any other hypothesis, the delegation of judicial power would annul the authority delegating it; and the concurrence of this department with the others in usurped powers, might subvert forever, and beyond the possible reach of any rightful remedy, the very Constitution which all were instituted to preserve.
James Madison, Report on the Virginia Resolutions
****
'any Thing in the Constitution '
Tenth Amendment
****
'or Laws of any State to the Contrary'
State Constitutions
THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION
Article 1 - BILL OF RIGHTS
Section 24 - MILITARY SUBORDINATE TO CIVIL AUTHORITY
The military shall at all times be subordinate to the civil authority
***
CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF KANSAS
BILL OF RIGHTS
Sec. 4. The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be tolerated, and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power.
***
CONSTITUTION OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
PART THE FIRST A Declaration of the Rights of the Inhabitants of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Article XVII. The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.
All the States have these, and they all say the military authority is subordinate to the civil authority inside the State....
and the federal authority IS a 'military' one.
-----
The Founders enumerated powers for a reason. Using what's known as the Rule of Exclusion, they enumerated powers to LIMIT the federal government.
• § 207. XIII. Another rule of interpretation deserves consideration in regard to the constitution. There are certain maxims, which have found their way, not only into judicial discussions, but into the business of common life, as founded in common sense, and common convenience. Thus, it is often said, that in an instrument a specification of particulars is an exclusion of generals; or the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another. Lord Bacon's remark, "that, as exception strengthens the force of a law in cases not excepted, so enumeration weakens it in cases not enumerated," has been perpetually referred to, as a fine illustration.
Justice Joseph Story on Rules of Constitutional Interpretation
It is a general principle of statutory construction that the mention of one thing implies the exclusion Of another. (For an exhaustive annotation on this "rule of exclusion," see: 73 Am. Jur. 2d Statutes §212 and the citations collected thereunder.) As exceptions in a statute strengthen the force of law in cases not excepted, so enumerations weaken it in cases not enumerated.
John C. Danforth, Missouri Attorney General, April 21, 1975
The Founders might as well have just have saved themselves the trouble by writing the Supremacy Clause and then gone home, because (according to your logic, anyway) the Clause ITSELF can negate the enumerations so painstakingly contained contained in the Compact!
------
Ted Cruz was born a citizen.
So you have said. The question is, what kind?
Natural born citizenship is a product of the citizenship of your NATURAL parents.
That would make him a dual Cuban/American citizenship, not natural born one.
make=give
Not so, Mama. Article 1, Section 8, the last paragraph says: "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof. "
To decide who needs to be naturalized, you need to know who doesn't. So, that was a "necessary and proper" law, as empowered by the US Constitution.
There are two kinds of citizens, those who are born citizens and those who need to be naturalized.
And the law of 1790 PROVES that Congress, the same guys who 3 years before wrote the Constitution, thought it was in their purview to determine who is automatically a citizen. It was signed by then president, George Washington.
Folks can belly-ache all they want, but Cruz will receive zero legal challenge to any decision to run, because no legal challenge is possible under our law. Under our law he is a born US citizen.