Now that you've seen the article, you know I've been thinking of this for a long while. The first five years of a child's life are dominated by its parents, particularly the mother. After that it's school. So if it were up to me as to what makes for a "natural citizen" (note the omission) I would set it to the place where the child spent the temporal majority residence of its rearing and the citizenship of the parents (both). By that criterion Ted Cruz would not be eligible. He'd make a better Supreme Court justice than a President anyway and an absolutely killer Attorney General. Were times not so desperate, I'd have wished he wouldn't run.
As you know, I am so dead set against Donald Trump I hate saying that. He will wreck conservatism both by the numbers of Democrats he will legalize and by association with conservatives for the consequences.
We might end up with a new Teddy Roosevelt [Trump], but that does not derail the Liberty Amendments [Levin].
It would be a powerful one-two combination to take back America.
I agree with your concern over treaties. Trump would put America first in each and every treaty. [One reason I support him.]
And the treaties we don’t like, we can get rid of via constitutional amendments. That, BTW, would be retroactive if I have any say. Roll those treaties back!
Cruz would be top notch on the Bully Pulpit. But what we really need in the White House is an executive who can replace desk zombies with achievers, who can strong-arm congress into cutting waste and approving judges opposed to Roe [an excellent litmus test to weed out activist-judges].