That's because he's an idiot, and you are a deluded crank.
Jeff and Kansas58 depicted below.
I'll second what Kansas58 said.
"It is not necessary that a man should be born in this country, to be 'a natural born citizen.' It is only requisite that he should be a citizen by birth, and that is the case with all the children of citizens who have ever resided in this country, though born in a foreign country."
- James Bayard, A Brief Exposition of the Constitution of the United States (1834)
Bayard's exposition, including his comments on Presidnetial eligibility, were approved by "The Great Chief Justice" of the US Supreme Court John Marshall, by legendary Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, and by the almost-as-famous Chancellor James Kent - no less than three of our greatest early legal experts.
These men knew the Founding Generation, and they knew what they meant when they wrote "natural born citizen."
Cruz is eligible.
I admire you both for continuing to battle the Birthers on every thread. I’m convinced more than ever that they are liberal plants. They are literally derailing every thread about Cruz. I’ve now talked to numerous constitutional law professors at my school and not one supports the birthers’ definition of natural born citizen.
That's because he's an idiot, and you are a deluded crank.
Jeff and Kansas58 depicted below.
Yes Jeff, the very one who ABSOLUTELY DISAGREES WITH YOU.
But once again, you LYINGLY cover up the FACT that John Marshall DISAGREES WITH YOU. (You also lie so as to make it appear that Baynard agrees with you.) But let's focus on how you are LYING about John Marshall.
John Marshall, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court: The Venus - 12 U.S. 253 (1814)
"The whole system of decisions applicable to this subject rests on the law of nations as its base. It is therefore of some importance to inquire how far the writers on that law consider the subjects of one power residing within the territory of another, as retaining their original character or partaking of the character of the nation in which they reside.Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says
"The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.""The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside there, and they are obliged to defend it because it grants them protection, though they do not participate in all the rights of citizens. They enjoy only the advantages which the laws or custom gives them. The perpetual inhabitants are those who have received the right of perpetual residence. These are a kind of citizens of an inferior order, and are united and subject to the society, without participating in all its advantages."
A domicile, then, in the sense in which this term is used by Vattel, requires not only actual residence in a foreign country, but "an intention of always staying there." Actual residence without this intention amounts to no more than "simple habitation."
The position is reinforced in this book as well.
So once again, Jeff is Lying. It's not that he hasn't seen this material, it's that he's seen it and refuses to accept it.
Marshall is NOT ON YOUR SIDE JEFF.