[xzins]

I have posted actual quotes and commentary with absolutely minimal comments of my own.

I did provide their comments from the congressional record. The link is below:

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_4_citizenships8.html

[AmericanVictory]

Reading the passage from the Congressional Record to which you have provided a link, I find one mention of the presidential eligibility requirement but without any connection that supports your argument. Rather it distinguishes that requirement from the ongoing debate set out. The entire debate is about naturalization that reflects the ongoing undeclared war with France then in progress. In fact the entire debate reflects the well understood distinction of the time between being the subject of a monarch as opposed to being a citizen of a republic.

Similarly there is a single mention of Blackstone in the context of how in British common law a person born overseas to British parents was thereby a subject of the British Monarch. This was a remark by a single delegate in the context of the debate over how foreign immigrants could come to be sufficiently loyal to this republic. In short there is nothing in this passage which reflects in any way upon the question of the eligibility of Ted Cruz to "be" President under the constitutional clause in question. Certainly there is nothing that "screams" of a universal adoption of English common law so as to be applicable to the point. Indeed much of the discussion reflects a concern over monarchical practices and loyalty to monarchs and how it was assured by such. The entire discussion reflects a clear understanding that how citizen loyalty to a republic, while as a concept it can be helped in its development by monarchical practices, is different from them.