‘Both ways of looking at it from your post don’t seem relevant. The US law on dual-citizenship does not mention gender ...’
The following is no intent to impune Cruz’ patriotism. I would support an amendment to make him elibible. But what was original intent?
So what was the founding fathers’ intent regarding ‘natural born citizen’? Was not the driving intention to prevent English nobles [or royalty] from siring children [possibly bastards] who could become our defacto king?
Quoting you here because Cruz supporters do nothing but belittle Tribe. He might be an enemy of the Constitution, but they are apparently intimidated by him:
“Tribe discussed Cruz’s own approach to constitutional issues, noting that under ‘the kind of judge Cruz says he admires and would appoint to the supreme court - an ‘originalist’ who claims to be bound by the historical meaning of the constitution’s terms at the time of their adoption - Cruz wouldn’t be eligible because the legal principles that prevailed in the 1780s and 90s required that someone be born on US soil to be a ‘natural born’ citizen.’
He added: ‘Even having two US parents wouldn’t suffice for a genuine originalist. And having just an American mother, as Cruz did, would clearly have been insufficient at a time that made patrilineal descent decisive.
‘On the other hand, to the kind of judge that I admire and Cruz abhors - a ‘living constitutionalist’ who believes that the constitution’s meaning evolves with the needs of the time - Cruz would ironically be eligible because it no longer makes sense to be bound by so narrow and strict a definition.’
Tribe said: ‘There is no single, settled answer. And our supreme court has never addressed the issue.’
Yes. And sadly, the candidate whose upbringing epitomized the fear the founders punked the system with a modified PDF.
And some who didn’t care enough in that case, make it an issue with Cruz.