I didn't say I didn't want to vote for him, I said that I want to be sure he is eligible.
The law and decisions were made pretty clear over the last several years. I may not agree with how the courts landed on the issue, but I’m not going to hold to some mythical standard just because.
No, they weren't; courts punting all cases regarding the question out because of lack of standing
offers no resolution, even if you accept the courts as non-corrupt (which evidence like NSA and ObamaCare rulings distinctly point against) — There are a few USSC cases that have some relevance, but I've not examined them closely.
If you are going to get high and mighty and invoke the rule of law, then you need to back it up with equally lofty sources such as law or court decisions.
How about The Naturalization Act of 1790, which says:
The pluralization of "parent" indicates two parents, not one; though there is the problem that this is a normal act of congress, not a constitutional amendment and cannot therefore [re]define the terms in the Constitution.children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural-born citizens.
SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, that the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of such naturalization, and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident of the United States: Provided also, That no person heretofore proscribed by any state, or who has been legally convicted of having joined the army of Great Britain during the late war, shall be admitted a citizen as foresaid, without the consent of the legislature of the state, in which such person was proscribed.SEC. 4. And be it further enacted, That the Act intituled, “An act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization,” passed the twenty-sixth day of March, one thousand seven hundred and ninety, be, and the same is hereby repealed.
“The pluralization of “parent” indicates two parents”
A fascinating observation... even more so considering that the quote you provided has neither the word parent or parents.
If by chance, you meant the word citizens (the first time it is used), and you make the wild jump that the fact citizens is plural means both parents then...
1.) Children is plural as well, do you have to have a sibling or be a twin to be a natural born citizen?
2.) What about single parents, are they out of luck?
3.) What about the second instance of the word citizens... “shall be considered as natural-born citizens” do you have to have split personalities to be a natural born citizen?
Or maybe... you could go with the obvious reading that the child of any US citizen is a natural born citizen... and thus by having a mother who was a US citizen, Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen.
The pluralization of "parent" indicates two parents, not one...
Not necessarily, because it says "children" rather than "a child".
If it read "a child of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as a natural-born citizen", then you would be correct.
But it doesn't say that. It's vague on the question, as is the Constitution.