I appreciate your quoting Blackstone about British law, because he was also the source of the 1790 law equating “natural born citizen” with “natural born subject”.
You have yet to give me the constitutional section that defines “natural born”.
I assume your silence means that you are aware there is no definition of “natural born” in the Constitution.
Plus, you are wrong. You either need to be naturalized to be a citizen or you are born already a citizen.
If a person renounces their US citizenship are they still a natural born citizen of the US? They haven’t been naturalized.
What inferences would SCOTUS make about that, based on naturalization laws?
I ask this because there are many different inferences that can be made, but the only legally binding ones are the ones a COURT has actually made. That’s why we need court rulings in order to ensure that an inference is LEGALLY BINDING.
So far nobody seems willing to engage in what I see as the bigger issue here: as long as we have to go by inferences rather than by settled, clearly-stated rulings, the courts can rule whatever they want to even in the middle of an election - and by doing so they can wait until Cruz is already elected and it’s too late for conservatives to nominate somebody else, and they can rule him ineligible.
Would you have any objection with the courts giving a clear ruling on what the term “natural born citizen” means? Preferably BEFORE we put all our eggs in the Cruz basket? Why or why not?
And I will note here: I LIKE CRUZ. I HOPE HE IS ELIGIBLE. If SCOTUS is going to say he’s not, though, I would want them to do it while we still have time to nominate Sarah Palin instead (or somebody else). Hillary will challenge. SCOTUS will rule, and it will depend on John Roberts, the guy who gave us Obamacare. Are you willing for that to happen at a time when it’s too late for us to do anything about it?
Um..I wasn't quoting Blackstone. It was from the first legal treatise written after Ratification which was an annotated version of Blackstone.
---
because he was also the source of the 1790 law equating “natural born citizen” with “natural born subject”.
LOL! Please show me the law that equates “natural born citizen” with “natural born subject”, as the word 'subject' is not contained in the 1790 Naturalization Act.
-----
You have yet to give me the constitutional section that defines “natural born”.
Again, you mis-ask the question to try to rephrase the argument. The Constitution is a document of limited, ENUMERATED federal power, so any authority to do as you claim will be listed. Please quote that section for me.
----
Plus, you are wrong.
Oh, yes..... the 'You're wrong because I say so ' argument.
If you have any evidence to counter my previous post that no one was FORCED to be a citizen against their will at the time of the Adoption of the Constitution, please provide it.