However, see the post by Whisky-X Post # 39 According to what he has posted Ted Cruz is a naturalized, not a "natural born", citizen per the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952.
I still believe there is enough in question about what constitutes a "natural born" citizen for there to be a Supreme Court ruling. However, with the makeup of the Court I shudder to think how that will come out, for it might include anchor babies as being deemed "natural born" citizens. I wish this had happened before so many liberals were placed onto the court.
You're right and, fwiw, according to this: 4 Supreme Court Cases define "natural born citizen".
As it is, many have tried to get the SCOTUS to take a peek at obama's situation, but all such cases have "lacked standing", doncha know.
These days, "Supreme Court Renegades" might be more accurate and comes with a cooler/more accurate acronym as a bonus.
So...here we are. Just faking it and free to make it up as we go.
Not good. "For lack of guidance, a nation falls..." (Proverbs 11:14).
“No I am not saying it did change the requirements for President. I was just referring you to the Naturalization Act of 1790 in my earlier post, which talked about children born to citizens living in a foreign country at the time of the child’s birth.”
A commonly found argument is the false claim that the Naturalization Act of 1790 says a child born abroad with U.S. citizen parents is a natural born citizen. In fact, the Naturalization Act of 1790 says the exact opposite by making such a child a naturalized U.S. citizen. The problem is with the failure of the reader to comprehend the sentence, where it says “shall be considered as a natural born citizen.” In fact, the use of the “considered as” phrasing is legal terminology meaning the child born abroad will be “considered as” if or accepted as (Merriam-Webster Dictionary) if the child were born with some and not all of the conditions of citizenship enjoyed by an actual natural born citizen.