Sure, but it has nothing to do with Natural Law. I don’t see the definition in Natural Law and I don’t see the requirement to restrict the President (and only the President) in Natural law. Citing Natural law in the NBC debate is the equivalent of “my opinion is obvious to me, therefore everyone should agree.”
Whose theory of Natural Law even speaks to citizenship in enough detail determine a distinction? Locke based much of his on the Bible, so maybe he did use Acts 22:27-29 to distinguish between those born citizens (the Apostle Paul was born a Roman) and those who acquired citizenship (the tribune with whom he spoke had purchased his citizenship.)
Again, the only thing I can see from Natural Law is NBC = citizen at birth. I have discussed the issue with many here on FR, and the anti-Cruz birthers (not meant as a pejorative; just convenient shorthand) are for the most part long on self-assured proclamations and short on substantiating evidence. (There is one who has posted some interesting court opinions that I still want to read through, but at first glance it looked like a case of selective editing and out-of-context quoting.) I really think that you are barking up the wrong tree with Natural Law and if there is evidence out there, it’s more likely to be found in common law or legal precedent.
Odd...Natural Born citizen isn’t mentioned in any legal text, referenced in some very old texts, but not defined, even there as law. It is even capitalized for you to understand where to find that Natural Born citizen.
Yet you think it isn’t a Natural Law definition.
Whose theory? Natural Law doesn’t have multiple theories. It has obviousness.
There is only one form of citizenship that is OBVIOUSLY a Natural Born citizen. You claim to recognize the purpose of the requirement, but then immediately violate that recognition by, with your own viewpoint, allowing citizens with multiple obligations and loyalties, and even those without any obligation or loyalty to the US, at their births.
So...what are you *actually* thinking?
Please note, I support Cruz. I support him on the basis that the Constitution has *already* been overthrown, but he might be willing to restore it.