Do you think it's possible that when Bayard wrote the word "citizens", i.e., plural, he meant both parents have to be citizens, and not just one?
The question has actually been asked before, but it's a good question, and I'll happily answer it again.
No, I don't, and for a very specific reason. Bayard was very explicit in what was "requisite" (="required"). He wrote:
"It is only requisite that he should be a citizen by birth..."
Bayard then gives a specific case or example of a situation that matches that requirement:
"...and that is the case with all the children of citizens who have ever resided in this country, though born in a foreign country."
So the core thought is: All that is required is that a person be a CITIZEN BY BIRTH.
He then says "all the children of citizens who have ever resided in this country" meet that qualification.
So too does Ted Cruz. He is just as much a citizen by birth as those children were that Bayard was referring to.
If we could channel James Bayard's ghost, I have no doubt he would tell us, "Yes, Mr. Cruz is eligible. He is a citizen by birth, and that is all that is required."
It was a patriarchal era. The citizenship of females was not an issue. They went where their husbands told them to go. Children as well did what the father directed.
A father could be a citizen, and it would be irrelevant about the mother. It seems a hard cold time, but it is the case for that era. Women did not vote and, therefore, were not a consideration and not even mentioned..
If we really want to cause a stir on Free Republic we should propose that Sarah Palin run under the understanding of female candidacy at the time of the Constitution.