[so_real]

" ... and then by amendment and thus are able to pass on natural born constitutional status on their own, just as the father once did"

And there you have it ... the heart of the legal question!

Did the Fourteenth Amendment with purpose weaken the Constitutional requirement of "natural born citizen" to a status which could be conferred by "either" parent having pure allegiance and jurisdiction? Or, is this status only conferred by "both" parents having pure allegiance and jurisdiction?

As this was not specifically spoken to in the amendement, I would presume no weakening of the requirement occurred. Remember that women could not vote until the Nineteenth Amendment; the doctrine of "partus sequitur patrem" was very much the standard with regard to citizens.

Furthermore, the author of the Fourteenth Amendment, Rep. John Bingham, describing his understanding of the language of the Constitution as ... "that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen" with my emphasis added.

I welcome the counter-argument by those who disagree. But even in disagreement, you see, there is a genuine dispute in material fact. It must be adjudicated. And it is long overdue for the Supreme Court to quit cowering in their corner and do their job with regard to the matter.

[Cold Heat]

There are other facts that mitigate.

Ted’s father was a refugee from Cuba, this in and of it’s self is not important. What is important is that his mother had natural born status. What other status could she have transferred?

Secondly, the entire purpose of the natural born language was security. The newly minted country was still at risk from the British and French.

That issue is no longer front and center nor does it keep people awake at night as it did then.

Since Vattel, rights and status have changed to include women, and yes, even single women or men. One can also look back and see that the interpretation of natural born was made in 1790. That interpretation does not conflict with the assertion of natural born status for Cruz through his mother.

Since he received that status there was no need to grant citizenship by statute. That was never done.

No question that there has been various opinions and statute changes since 1790, and this has muddled the case and made it possible to challenge, but not necessarily possible to win.

[Cold Heat]

"that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen" with my emphasis added.

Three things here to look at, and yes that is one of the interpretations.

1. In 1790 the interpretation under jurisdiction also included men and women who are US citizens traveling abroad who bore a child abroad..

2.John Jay had 2 foreign born children.

3. If you want to cling to the two parent issue, then Donald trump does not qualify because his mother was a naturalized immigrant from Scotland.