Really?
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.Sounds like restrictions to me.
Nothing in the Constitution, it's amendments, US Law, or SCOTUS ruling unambiguously defines "Natural Born" as requiring 2 US Citizens at birth or requiring birth to take place in the US.
This is true — but if you appeal to a congressional act to claim that his mother could transmit citizenship to him, you are implicitly relying on a [normal] congressional act; but such an act cannot alter the Constitution, and as congress is only given the power to define a uniform rule of naturalization to rely upon this is to implicitly assert that he is a naturalized citizen which is contrary to the claim that he is natural born. (i.e. it is self contradictory.)
Until there is something that does unambiguously define those issues as going against Cruz, HE IS eligible to be POTUS.
Oh? And why shouldn't I take it to be the other way? That until there's something that unambiguously says otherwise that anyone who is not born in the US to two citizen parents is not a Natural Born Citizen? — I would much rather start with the most stringent interpretation than start with a loose one ant try to 'tighten' it up, especially considering how precedence has essentially been elevated to a superior position over constitutionality.
If Congress is to adopt a uniform set of rules for naturalization then don't they have to first define who doesn't need to be naturalized, i.e. natural born citizens?