Replies

Let me see.... Do I take your word for it, or do I take the word of the Harvard Law Review here:
harvardlawreview.org/2015/03/on-the-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen

And the overwhelming bipartisan legal opinion here:
m.townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2015/03/23/yes-ted-cruz-is-constitutionally-eligible-to-be-president-n1974967

Give it up, dude.

The authors argument suffers from the fallacy of bald assertion. They provide no convincing evidence for their position on who is included as an Article II natural born citizen. They do not examine what was the source of the Framers definition of an Article II natural born citizen, let alone what was the definition of a natural born citizen when the Framers drafted and adopted the Constitution and when it was eventually ratified. They ignore so much of the historical and legal record in coming to their bald conclusions. For a discussion of this historical and legal evidence, see:

A Response to Neil Katyal and Paul Clement on the Meaning of a Natural Born Citizen

The Guy Benson article at townhall.com basically relies on the ridiculous fallacy that the 14th Amendment confers status to anyone born in the country regardless of circumstance.

In defining what an Article II “natural born Citizen” is, we do not seek to read into the Constitution that which was not intended and written there by the Framers. Despite popular belief, the Fourteenth Amendment does not convey the status of “natural born Citizen” in its text nor in its intent. Some add an implication to the actual wording of the Fourteenth Amendment by equating the amendment’s “citizen” to Article II’s “natural born Citizen.” But nowhere does the 14th Amendment confer “natural born citizen” status. The words simply do not appear there, but some would have us believe they are implied. But the wording of the Amendment is clear in showing that it confers citizenship only and nothing more.

Neither the 14th Amendment nor Wong Kim Ark make one a Natural Born Citizen