“Why are you being so dishonest? That 1790 law was REPEALED in 1795,”
First, the people who wrote the Constitution enacted the 1790 law.
So that proves that Congress has the power to define natural born citizen.
In 1795, they repealed the law.
But later the Congress kept changing the law and re-established the same law.
The law in effect when Ted Cruz was born went back to the original 1790 version, except for eliminating the distinction between father and mother.
“So that proves that Congress has the power to define natural born citizen”.
The constitution, and the body of legal decisions and practices arising from applying it, creates the common law jurisprudence arising from that common law document. All black letter statutory law legislated in accordance with Article I, Section 8 are enacted to specifically define the common law. No constitutional provision can be modified by statute absent the Article V amendment process.
The intent of Article II, Sec i, clause 5 was to protect the office of POTUS from undue and baleful foreign influence, PARTICULARLY from a father owing allegiance to a foreign sovereignty. This reflects the patriarchical belief of the framers, derived from the vattelian notion that the citizenship condition of the children followed that of the father.
This is NOT some kind of civil rights issue. Article II was not meant to be inclusionary. It revolves around whether or not we continue this reckless path of failing to invoke the protections of Article II against usurpatious creatures like Obama or anyone else, particularly a glib tounged “strict constitutionalist” like Cruz claims to be.