That’s the current law of the land. I thought that posting it would be helpful for this discussion. I honestly posted the relevant section in its entirety, as it is likely to be applied in any court challenge to Senator Cruz.
The Founding Fathers made provision for any and all of their original thinking to be altered by Constitutional Amendment. They never intended for what they developed to be set in stone forever. They were smart enough to make it difficult to amend the Constitution but not impossible. The current Immigration and Naturalization Act has been held to be Constitutional under the provisions of the Citizenship Clause of the14th Amendment.
It is indeed ironic that in 2016, should Ted Cruz run for president, the first shot at determining his eligibility will belong to Secretary of State John Kerry.
But it was not the law until it was MADE the law. Natural citizens existed PRIOR to the law, therefore the law is unnecessary to their existence. If the existence of "natural citizens" is not dependent upon this law, then how can those whose existence *IS* dependent upon the law be the same?
The Founding Fathers made provision for any and all of their original thinking to be altered by Constitutional Amendment.
Absolutely. But I know of no constitutional Amendment repealing Article II, or redefining the term "natural born citizen." It is significant that the authors of the 14th amendment intentionally excluded these words when they had the chance to add them. (As did Wong Kim Ark.)