You state that I’ve barely scratched the surface with my citations yet you are unable to make any citations to support your opinion. You claim that I’m in the kiddie pool but brother, you are not even wet.
No one (other than yourself) is asserting that Congress is attempting to alter the meaning of words.
No one (other than yourself) is asserting that Congress is attempting to alter or repeal a law of nature.
You say you don’t want to trade historical cites ... fine, start citing laws, or the Constitution. Until you can do that you are just spouting off with your unsupported opinion.
Not unable, just not interested in citing them to you. You have such a disconnect that it would be a waste of time from my perspective. Anybody who keeps citing a NATURALIZATION statute as proof of "natural born" will very likely not accept anything which challenges their world view.
No one (other than yourself) is asserting that Congress is attempting to alter or repeal a law of nature.
And see here? You're playing word games. If Ted Cruz didn't qualify by the rules of 1787, and according to you, he qualifies according to the rules of 1934, then it is a defacto alteration of what "n-a-t-u-r-a-l born" means.
You say you don’t want to trade historical cites ... fine, start citing laws, or the Constitution.
And this is more proof that you simply can't grasp my point. You can't cite a LAW because no "law" is applicable. Laws cannot change nature.
You treat the words "Natural Born Citizen" like they can mean whatever we want them to mean. I treat them as having a specific and unalterable meaning.
As long as you think the meaning is flexible, you will be unable to grasp my point.