There are two, perhaps more, legitimate legal opinions on what is a intentionally ambiguous 2 words, that were inserted into the Constitution.
John Jay had two foreign born children, and he was certainly not the only one.
The original intent, we do know was national security.
Ambiguity is often a tool.
This is not what you would call settled law interpretation, but getting it settled may well be impossible as it might remain as it has for over 200 years as ambiguous.
There is a modern 20th century interpretation that has a majority agreement, and that opinion is not the one you are using.
Perhaps there will now be a 21st century interpretation, but it won’t be from this case. it is purely political and thus lacks standing.
I don't believe it was made "intentionally ambiguous" at all. The Framers wrote the Constitution purposefully using the common language of the day. They wanted a government of the People, so they wrote the binding documents in the language the People could easily understand. And encouraged us to continue that legacy in all our legal doings.
The Constitution leaves no room for doubt upon this subject. The words "natural-born citizen of the United States" occur in it, and the other provision also occurs in it that "Congress shall have power to pass a uniform system of naturalization." To naturalize a person is to admit him to citizenship. Who are natural-born citizens but those born within the Republic? Those born within the Republic, whether black or white, are citizens by birth -- natural-born citizens. There is not such word as white in your Constitution. Citizenship, therefore, does not depend upon complexion any more than it depends upon the rights of election or of office. All from other lands, who, by the terms of your laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural-born citizens. Gentlemen can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution in relation to Indians. The reason why that exception was made in the Constitution is apparent to everybody. The several Indian tribes were recognized at the organization of this Government as independent sovereignties. They were treated with as such; and they have been dealt with by the Government ever since as separate sovereignties. Therefore, they were excluded from the general rule.
Hon. John A. Bingham
The Congressional Globe April 11th, 1862, page 1639
The emphasis is mine. The issue is as simple as John Bingham stated it was, without disagreement, seventy-nine years after the War for Independence was won. Children born in the Republic (jus soli) of parents (plural) owing allegiance to no other sovereignty (jus sanguinis) *are* in language of the Constitution the natural-born citizens. With the one exception provided of the American Indians, this definition of natural-born citizen was without contradiction in 1862 and prior, according to Bingham's most educated estimation. As the author of the 14th Amendment, issues of citizenship were his strong suit.
There is a modern interpretation that boils down to the Congress being able to redefine any word in the Constitution of its choosing without following the amendment process. I think that is a terrible precedent to set. If we permit redefining "natural born citizen" today, they'll redefine "shall not be infringed" tomorrow. They are already trying to redefine "militia" without using the amendment process. If we permit this to succeed, the unintended consequences will be disastrous.
All that being said, I do believe Cruz can be seated as POTUS as there is precedent in Chester Arthur and Barack Obama for doing just that. But he won't get the nod and have that opportunity if he does not stop disenfranchising the high-information conservative base. Right now his potentially most staunch supporters are shaking our collective heads wondering what kind of Constitutional authority can get this point so wrong. And then to use the "
nothing to see here" strategy to ignore it is insulting to our intelligence.
Ted Cruz can win this election, but not, in my opinion, by following the course his campaign advisers have plotted for him. It worked for Obama because he is a black liberal democrat. They effectively used "racism" to quell the argument. Ted Cruz does not have that luxury. He needs to try a different tactic.
Embrace the conundrum and signal to the People that once seated as POTUS he will use the influence the Executive Branch of government to formally request clarity be provided by the Judicial Branch of government, whether it works in his favor or not. By showing conservatives that he is willing to face potential impeachment himself in order to protect the sanctity of the Constitution, he will show he is a genuine originalist, and encourage our trust and favor. That will go along with us conservative birthers; and I believe the bulk of us will happily stand down out of respect for the gesture and anticipated final resolution.