Look, we keep hearing that the “Constitution is vague and unclear” on what an NBC is, but it’s time to accept that that argument is nothing but a cop out.
In all actually, pretty much the entirety of English common law, our Founders, and all our constitutional experts all the way up to the beginning of the 20th century agree practically uniformly that natural born citizenship descends through place of birth (jus soli), with parentage being of much less importance, if they even granted it any at all.
The only - ONLY - reason that this issue is “cloudy” is because of people who purposefully obfuscate it with partial evidence and unhistorical arguments in favour of their favourite politicians, whether Cruz, Obama, or some other. It’s all fluff and nonsense. Someone born on US soil is an NBC, someone not born on US soil is not.
See post 16. There are over 2 dozen opinions and decisions on the NBC issue in that post alone. My post 26 bring 50 more to the table regarding Obama.
And these are just a few. The fact is - this NBC issue - which defines a special class of citizenship unique solely and only to the President of the United States is by no means settled law.
If it was, would we be having this conversation?
Nobody disputes the 35 years of age requirement, right? This whole NBC nonsense needs to be addressed by an Amendment to the Constitution. Unless and until that happens - the SCOTUS has the final say so.
And as far as I know - They ain't said (bleep) on Cruz or Rubio. So - continue to see tagline.
Someone born on US soil can be an NBC, someone not born on US soil can not.