[ought-six]

Thanks for the link. I read that, and more. The bottom line is, as long as a parent (i.e., at least one parent) is An American citizen at the time of the child’s birth, no matter where the birth occurs, that child is a natural born citizen (”natural born citizen” simply meaning that someone is an American citizen at birth, and does not have to go through any naturalization).

So, if one or both of Ted Cruz’s parents were American citizens when he was born, then he is a natural born citizen and can be president.

However, if neither of his parents were American citizens at the time of his birth (in his mother’s case she would have had to renounce her American citizenship or have it legally stripped) then Cruz would be ineligible to serve as president.

[Uncle Sham]

I still don't see where this is stated as you are describing it. To me, it appears as though the 1795 Act re-defined the results of a birth out of the limits or jurisdiction of the United States from natural born citizen (1790 Act)to simply citizen(1795 Act). There was a reason this was done. Some have suggested that they simply changed the terminology and that the natural born citizen description from 1790 means exactly the same as the citizen description of 1795. If so, why? If so, why wasn't the term natural born citizen changed to citizen in the Presidential eligibility requirements of the Constitution?