Replies

“...The Framers of our Constitution applied Vattel’s concept...”

That someone is a citizen by birth is absolutely valid. That a “law” can also define what a certain circumstance of birth equates to is also just as valid. A mere three years after the founders wrote the NBC clause in the constitution, they used their constitutionally granted authority over citizenship and in the Naturalization Act of 1790 defined one particular circumstance of birth (Children of US citizen born outside the nation) as a certain type of citizen (are Natural Born Citizens). Why would the Founding Fathers/Framers of the Constitution do that *IF* (as so many Trump supporters claim) it was not what they believed? It flatly refutes the Trump supporter’s understanding of “Vattel” *AND* it also tends to refute the claim they wrote the constitution per Vattel. However, it does align nicely with British Common Law concepts which Taft (president and supreme court justice) noted is the legal style/foundation that the founders thought, argued and wrote in because it was most familiar to them.

Being NBC at birth to two US citizens on US soil is *absolutely* valid. However, that point also does not preclude citizenship *laws* being valid as well. The 1790 Act, regardless of being law and or later modified is also just as valid in determining the opinion of “the founding fathers who participated in the framing of the Constitution”. They *included* in the constitution that Congress had the authority to define citizenship by law. No amendment is needed as it’s been in there from the very start. Now *Legally* speaking, the only argument that matters is the citizenship law in place when Cruz was born - and that law is absolutely valid because the founders (who wrote the NBC clause) also wrote in the constitution that congress has the authority to legislate citizenship.

So *both* legal concepts are currently (and have been since the founding) valid — at least until a court of competent jurisdiction says different and/or congress acts to affirmatively resolve any related issue. Which would be yet another law, valid until changed by legislation and/or SCOTUS says different. Lather, rinse, repeat...

And regardless of any existing SCOTUS ruling made since that time, due to *judicial restraint* it can not be applied to a case resolving presidential qualifications until the same argument(s) are used successfully in a relevant case. And they may very well be successful in constraining the definition when they do - but they haven’t yet done so specifically for presidential qualifications.

Nowadays, even if you are born on US soil to two parents - there is legally binding paperwork involved which is defined by laws in order to get your birth certificate which you can later use to show your provenance. Good luck living “on the grid” without a birth certificate (ie - the Govt’s approval/acknowledgement of your birth) if you are born today.

And as I’ve said, bottom line: if Cruz would have been fine by the founders (and they did say in their own words in the legislative record that his circumstance of birth would have been fine as NBC), who am I to argue with them? And if Cruz did not present a threat to Trump, we probably would be debating issues instead of trying to find different ways to split the same “hair”.

Opinions may vary...

Best of luck with your candidate!