[sten]

you’re confusing citizenship with being a natural born citizen

‘natural born citizen’ is a subset of ‘US citizen’

btw, you mentioned WW2. very few wives went overseas with their husbands in WW2. there were far more incidents of illegitimate kids being born to US servicemen and women of whatever country they were in.

[TauntedTiger]

Stop complicating things—a wonderful candidate can simply renounce his/her foreign citizenship to be eligible.

It’s the final step one takes to establish eligibility! /s

[Anitius Severinus Boethius]

you’re confusing citizenship with being a natural born citizen

‘natural born citizen’ is a subset of ‘US citizen’

No, there is no such distinction. It doesn't exist. Again, let me allow you to read the pertinent portion of the sentence that devastates your attempt to twist this idea to your liking:

contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only,-birth and naturalization.

That line states crystal clear that the Constitution recognizes only if a person is born with citizenship or is naturalized as a citizen after birth.

There is no 'subset' to discuss. There is no 'subset' that exists. If you are a citizen at birth you are a citizen at birth. And if you are a citizen at birth, you are a 'natural born citizen'.

Period. End of story. Don't like it? Take it up with the Supreme Court. They are the ones who wrote it.

This was a ridiculous argument when people tried it against Obama and it was a ridiculous argument when people tried it against Chester Arthur and it was a ridiculous argument when people tried it against Charles Curtis and it remains a ridiculous argument against Ted Cruz. The reason why it is ridiculous is that being born a citizen makes you a natural born citizen. The idea that there is a magic third form of citizenship (or the idea that it is a specific 'subset' of someone born a citizen) is not based on anything found in the laws or jurisprudence of the United States.

[MMaschin]

It's really scary what is happening.

Someone once asked me, after overhearing me call myself a 'conservative', what exactly were 'conservatives' trying to conserve?

I started out by asking him rhetorically - "What do you consider the 'United States' to be?". Did he think it was the geographical area? Was it the people that made up it's Citizenry? What is it exactly that made the United States, "The United States"?

I then explained to him that to 'conservatives' it was the Constitution, the blueprint handed down by the founders, that made up the core of what is "The United States of America", and that is what I'm trying to conserve. The founders were the first, and possibly only, true patriots. They dreamed of something incredible, and they gave us an equally incredible document to try to preserve it.

And now, people who claim to be 'conservative' simply want to ignore parts of the incredible document, the heart of what is America, simply because it is inconvenient. Who's to choose what other parts are to be ignored? Obama wants to ignore the whole thing - if we start doing the same, how are we to stop him?

Would Ted Cruz make an excellent President? YES - I believe he would be the next Reagan. But if we choose to ignore the Constitution in ANY situation, what justification do we have when the Democrats start to confiscate legal guns? How about when they start forcing churches to perform gay marriages, or be shut down for discrimination?

This is a slippery slope, and I'm terrified because of the number of 'conservatives' who seem to want to put a garden hose on it, and slide down head first!

[okie01]

btw, you mentioned WW2. very few wives went overseas with their husbands in WW2

I said POST-war.

[okie01]

‘natural born citizen’ is a subset of ‘US citizen’

Of which there are two sub-sets, "naturalized" and "natural born" (or, if you prefer, citizen-at-birth).

Cruz was never naturalized, was he?

Ergo, he was of the natural-born variety.

[DoodleDawg]

‘natural born citizen’ is a subset of ‘US citizen’

Where is that defined?