The State Department, which is responsible for examining claims of citizenship by those born abroad, stipulates that the courts have not ruled on their eligibility to the presidency, which means that there isn't a definitive answer. The State Department recognizes that arguments can be made for and against their eligibility.
For the record, I cited two sections of the FAM. First, I cited the section on eligibility to the presidency. Second, I cited the section about military installations and diplomatic facilities. So, I'm not sure why you think I cited the wrong section.
As to your point that the Founding Fathers recognized jus sanguinis, you are correct. However, they restricted jus sanguinis citizenship to the father. They did not recognize jus sanguinis citizenship transmitted through the mother.
As the FAM stipulates, the primary means of acquiring U.S. citizenship is the principle of jus soli under the 14th Amendment.Jus sanguinis citizenship is acquired only by federal statute.
7 FAM 1131 Basis for Determination of AcquisitionIf his U.S. citizen mother met the residency requirements before his birth, then Senator Ted Cruz is a natural-born citizen by federal statute through the principle of jus sanguinis. Whether or not he is eligible to the presidency is a question for the courts, but I believe they would rule in his favor.7 FAM 1131.1 Authority
7 FAM 1131.1-1 Federal Statutes
(CT:CON-349; 12-13-2010)a. Acquisition of U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to a U.S. citizen parent is governed by Federal statutes. Only insofar as Congress has provided in such statutes, does the United States follow the traditionally Roman law principle of "jus sanguinis" under which citizenship is acquired by descent (see 7 FAM 1111 a(2)).
I encourage debate on this issue because I believe we need a definitive answer from SCOTUS.
They did recognize it through the mother after the nation recognition of women’s rights, in general.
I agree with you that the courts would recognize bloodline citizenship if it ever had the case brought before it. Should they intervene on their own without a case brought before them? I don’t know if they can do that. The Constitution as I read it says they have jurisdiction over cases arising under the constitution, under the law, and under treaties.
It seems that a case would have to come to them; that they can’t come up with a case on their own.
To have standing in such a case would require a candidate denied access to a presidential election due to bloodline citizenship, and that probably won’t happen.
I don’t read where the legislative or executive could ask them to rule on a question, and I don’t think they’d ask that anyway, since they would be inclined to preserve their own powers.
I suppose a State could bring a case against either a candidate or a fuzzy law, and they could choose to rule on it.