Correct, if we look at that as lawyerly as we can, you're right, not at that time.
The Blood in the "Blood and Soil" requirement to satisfy the "Natural Born" definition, as opposed to defining "native born", more likely would have been defined as Father, rather than mom and dad.
I don't know if mom's citizenship would have mattered in the 1700s unless there was no father(?), I haven't researched it or had reason to, since obama's daddy supposedly was still alive enough to convey whatever citizenship he had to his baby boy Barry.
So...speaking of research, self proclaimed resident researcher, perhaps you can help us all with your talents and find out the legal and historical answers to that and some other questions. Such as:
Where do the rights and privileges, as well as the responsibilities and obligations, of citizenship, whatever they may, material or otherwise, come from?
Who or what has claim to them such that they can pass them, whatever they may be, along?
Or what gives you or me right to them or to be obligated by them? Why?
Is it place? Is it a parent, which? Both? What comes from which? Why?
While you're busy with that, here's my explanation and understanding regarding the genius of our FFs' choosing the highest standard possible:
By requiring Natural born, both blood and soil, citizenship, the FFs avoided all known contentions, arguments, disagreements, among each other and other nations, laws, treaties, you name it, then or in the future, whether our now or our future, too for the single most powerful individual in their new government.
See, the ONE thing we can all agree on is, someone who is born here to citizen parents at the time of his or her birth is a citizen of here and nowhere else. Whether we love them or hate them, we agree that they are one of US.
That's what the FFs were shooting for and, as a practical matter, would require for the sole person who commands each and every citizen soldier.
That person had better be one of us or we ain't taking/following his/her orders.
You could love or hate Clinton or Bush, but they were natural born citizens and eligible for the office, though not necessarily competent, and you had to follow their orders.
obama is neither eligible nor competent, and his skin color and/or which group of US claims him doesn't change either one.
It thus remains questionable if his orders should be followed, a situation the FFs would not understand nor tolerate.
At least Cruz seems to be very competent so far.
Correct, if we look at that as lawyerly as we can, you're right, not at that time.
The Blood in the "Blood and Soil" requirement to satisfy the "Natural Born" definition, as opposed to defining "native born", more likely would have been defined as Father, rather than mom and dad.
Okay. Let me rephrase that.
There is not a single quote from any Founder or Framer or any member of their generation that defines "natural born citizen" as "someone born on US soil AND having either two citizen parents, or a citizen father."
The requirement simply does not exist.
Instead, we have America's most prominent legal experts from early America signing on to such ideas as: If you were born in the United States, but didn't have citizen parents, that still makes you a natural born citizen. Or conversely, if you were born outside of the United States, but had citizen parents, you're ALSO a natural born citizen.
Literally every major legal expert of early America who spoke clearly on the issue says that birthers are wrong.