1) The constitution doesn’t say but the framer’s understanding combined with the statutes enacted from the first Congress indicate that the phrase means both birthed abroad to American parents and birthed in the territory regardless of their parent’s citizenship. The Supreme Court has confirmed that definition on multiple occasions in various contexts.
2) So the one remaining question remains is if Cruz was a citizen at birth. And that’s an easy one. The Nationality Act of 1940 outlines which citizens became nationals and citizens at birth. Citizenship goes to the baby of one American parent who has spend a certain number of years here. Someone must have a single parent who has resided in the US for at least 10 years including 5 after the age of 14 in order to be considered a natural born citizen. Cruz’s mother was born in Delaware. Is Delaware part of America? I think so.
3) With the 1790 Naturalization Act - Cruz would also qualify and there were a lot of Founders involved in that act.
So can we cut it out? No. People don’t want to cut it out. They want to keep it up posting some crap on my posts or somebody else’s: Don’t you read the constitution? YES. It says natural born citizen! Yes. Well look at it. I did read it. It says natural born citizen. He’s born of an American mother. Yeah, well it doesn’t mean that. Well, what does it mean? Hey, haven’t you read the book by Coo-Coo Clock over here. Enough already.
MARK LEVIN explains that Ted Cruz IS a natural born citizen
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKvT6DDR-4A
Did you read that part of the constitution where it says president must be born on American soil and have two citizen parents? Quit being so dogmatic, you don’t know as much about anything as you think you do.
No we cannot cut it out. You can join the crowd “looting the store”, justifying it in your eyes that everyone is doing it, yet it will not make it right.
1. Naturalization law from 1790 was amended in 1795, the only change was elimination of the clause allowing people like Ted Cruz to be considered as natural born citizens.
2. The only SCOTUS case that mentioned NBC phrase is
Minor vs Happerset:
“…The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first…”
The NBC phrase was included into Constitution to ensure that people with foreign allegiance at birth are NOT allowed as commander-in-chief of US military.
The only definition that makes sense is the one where there is no doubt that child has one and only one natural allegiance at birth to USA: born in the country of citizen parents.
This is a simple logic. Lawyers use fancy language to obfuscate things from regular folks.
3. Mark Levin may rot in Hell for his role in attacking “birthers”. It is one thing to have a difference of opinion; he chose to use vicious language against people questioning Obama’s eligibility.
Everyone that takes your position has to cite court cases, acts of congress etc. to support a definition of NBC that does nothing to ensure allegiance to the United States. Then you have to ask why did the framers add the NBC clause if it does nothing to ensure the allegiance to the country? Why is the NBC qualification even there? Were the framers nonsensical? Of course not. So why would they have added the NBC clause when it still allows people like Obama and Harris to be President? NBC surely meant something to the framers and they clearly thought everyone else agreed with that meaning otherwise they would have defined NBC expressly. If NBC means anyone born to just one citizen parent then what is the purpose of the NBC requirement as it does nothing to ensure purity of allegiance?
Like you said yourself READ THE CONSTITUTION. It says natural born citizen. Why does it say that? I'm pretty sure everyone on this thread knows why it says that but then they want to define natural born citizen in a way that violates that purpose. That is where your position is nonsensical.
Natural born citizen means a person born on the soil to two citizen parents. This is the ONLY definition that ensures purity of allegiance by birth and thus can be the ONLY definition implied by the Constitution.
The Constitution refers to 3 categories of Citizens. They are Citizens, Natural Born Citizens, and Naturalized Citizens. Naturalized Citizens existed only after Congress established the rules which were not in effect when the Constitution was written. The ‘naturalization’ came later.
So then what was the distinction between Citizens and Natural Born Citizens? Cruz in no way qualifies as a Natural Born Citizen. His father a Cuban and Cruz was not even born in this Country. His mother is said to have renounced her American Citizenship before he was even born. She voted in Canadian elections which requires Canadian citizenship. These are matters of public record.
Cruz is a great threat to our Constitution but for reasons impossible for me to perceive, he is revered be many. Cruz is not really eligible to be a U.S. Senator as he was a citizen of Canada until 2014. Senators are required to be American Citizens for 9 years. He still does not meet that qualification. (See Article 1 Section 3.)
Cruz realizes these things more than you do or most others.
If an act of Congress makes you a citizen you are not a natural born citizen. You are by definition a naturalized citizen. Prior to the 1930s wifes/mothers could not confer citizenship to their children. Citizenship came from the father/husband.