“So that proves that Congress has the power to define natural born citizen”.
The constitution, and the body of legal decisions and practices arising from applying it, creates the common law jurisprudence arising from that common law document. All black letter statutory law legislated in accordance with Article I, Section 8 are enacted to specifically define the common law. No constitutional provision can be modified by statute absent the Article V amendment process.
The intent of Article II, Sec i, clause 5 was to protect the office of POTUS from undue and baleful foreign influence, PARTICULARLY from a father owing allegiance to a foreign sovereignty. This reflects the patriarchical belief of the framers, derived from the vattelian notion that the citizenship condition of the children followed that of the father.
This is NOT some kind of civil rights issue. Article II was not meant to be inclusionary. It revolves around whether or not we continue this reckless path of failing to invoke the protections of Article II against usurpatious creatures like Obama or anyone else, particularly a glib tounged “strict constitutionalist” like Cruz claims to be.
“No constitutional provision can be modified by statute absent the Article V amendment process.”
But the constitution is NOT being modified. You keep fantasizing that your definition of “natural born citizen” is in the Constitution.
Because there is nothing in the Constitution defining what is a natural born citizen, it is Congress’ job to define “natural born citizen.”
You can’t modify something THAT IS NOT THERE.
What you can’t wrap your head around is that the Constitution DOES NOT SAY what you want it to say.
“The intent of Article II, Sec i, clause 5 was to protect the office of POTUS from undue and baleful foreign influence, PARTICULARLY from a father owing allegiance to a foreign sovereignty”.
Doesn’t matter what the intent was. It only matters what it SAYS.
Do you imagine that the Constitutional Convention all agreed?
You have no idea what ALL of the voting members intended.
The Constitutional convention spent most of their time disagreeing with each other.
“This reflects the patriarchical belief of the framers, derived from the vattelian notion that the citizenship condition of the children followed that of the father.”
No one takes Vattel seriously. Why is it that EVEN THE FRENCH GOVERNMENT does not pay any attention to Vattel?
The Framers followed THE BIBLE and they followed BRITISH precedents — not a private book that isn’t even taken seriously by the French government.
The Framers followed the BIBLICAL example in which the citizenship of the child follows the parents.
Israelites born in Egypt were Israelites, not Egyptians.