By now, everyone SHOULD be aware that the US Supreme Court defined the term "natural born citizen" as "children born in a country of parents who were its citizens." See https://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/06/24/minor-v-happersett-is-binding-precedent-as-to-the-constitutional-definition-of-a-natural-born-citizen/
When paraphrased specifically to the USA, that definition becomes, "one born on US soil of two US citizens." Since Ted Cruz was not born in the USA of two US citizens, he cannot possibly meet the criteria required to be a natural born citizen.
SCOTUS has cited that same definition in the process of deciding at least four cases.
Furthermore, that court has never once cited any OTHER definition of that term; which, means, it has never once cited ANY definition of that term which would include Ted Cruz as BEING a natural born citizen.
I would also point out that the Naturalization Act of 1790; which, Cruz frequently uses to justify his false claim of being a natural born citizen, was totally repealed a mere five years later with the passing of the Naturalization Act of 1795. So, the law Cruz claims makes him a natural born citizen has not been in effect for some 220 years!
I trust that everyone DOES know that once a law is repealed, it is no longer legally binding and has zero bearing on anything in the future.
Also important to note however, is how the wording of the NAof1795 was different from that of the NAof1790. The 1790 law said...
"...the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States..."
The 1795 law said...
"...the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of such naturalization, and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident of the United States..."
See the complete text of both Acts here: www.indiana.edu/~kdhist/H...8/naturalization1790.html
The children spoken of in those portions of both acts are the same class of people; and, as can be seen from the wording of each act, the former said that class of people were to "be considered as natural born citizens;" whereas, the latter said they were to "be considered as citizens." It is also duly noted that the term "natural born citizen" was never written into any law legislated by Congress again; so, obviously, if Congress ever thought making that class of people natural born citizens was a good idea, that thinking was quickly abandoned and never returned.
Many scholars believe the wording was changed in the 1795 law because Congress realized it had made an error in the 1790 law which made it APPEAR that children born outside the limits of the USA to US citizens were natural born citizens. Regardless of the reason, however, there is no denying that once the 1790 law was repealed, it was no longer in effect and is certainly not in effect today.
That fact alone makes Cruz’s attempt to use the NAof1790 to justify his claim of being eligible to become president disingenuous at best. Indeed, there should now be no doubt that Cruz can neither legally nor logically depend on the NAof1790 to support his claim of being a natural born citizen TODAY.
Still, I would be remiss if I failed to point out that even DURING the approximately five years that law WAS in effect, it would not have made Cruz a natural born citizen. Rather, it actually PROVES HE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN a natural born citizen even DURING that short period.
Here is why...
Please note the words, "Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States." The words BEFORE that provision make it clear that the "persons" to which it refers are children of naturalized US citizen fathers. So, what it means is that if the father of children described therein had not resided in the USA for at least five years after becoming a naturalized US citizen, that child was NOT to be considered as a natural born citizen. In other words, a child would NOT be considered to be a natural born citizen if it were born BEFORE the father became a naturalized US citizen OR before the passing of five years AFTER the father's naturalization process was completed.
Since Cruz senior did not become a naturalized US citizen until 2005, he was not a US citizen AT ALL at the time his son Ted was born. Therefore, even if the NAof1790 WERE still in effect today, it would actually EXCLUDE Ted from being a natural born citizen.
