The Constitution is vague about the subject.
The Constitution is not vague, it is completely silent. The only word defined in it is "Treason". As Madison said:
What could the Convention have done? If they had in general terms declared the Common law to be in force, they would have broken in upon the legal Code of every State in the most material points: they wd. have done more, they would have brought over from G.B. a thousand heterogeneous & antirepublican doctrines, and even the ecclesiastical Hierarchy itself, for that is a part of the Common law. If they had undertaken a discrimination, they must have formed a digest of laws, instead of a Constitution.
The meaning of "natural born citizen" cannot be discerned from the Constitution, it must be gleaned from where the term came into the vernacular of that era.
Therefore statute has always been used to make these determinations.
There are no statutes defining "natural born citizens", there are only statutes defining the requirement/conditions for naturalized citizens. "Natural citizens" cannot be defined by man made laws, they are the consequence of "natural law" which the founders cited in the Declaration of independence. To the founders, the idea of defining a "natural citizen" would make as much sense as a law defining pi.
Two honest questions, respectfully offered - has the Supreme Court ruled on whats a 'natural born citizen',
They have only touched on the subject, but never offered more than an opinion about what it means. In other words it was "dicta" not a holding. There are several Supreme Court cases in which they make it clear that they believe the Vattel definition applies,
the latest being Minor v Happersett. (1875)
The Earliest of which I can think, being the case of "The Venus." (1814)
and what do you know about the issue, that were missed by the multiple federal courts in which challenges to Cruz's eligibility (as implied by their ruling he is eligible to be on the ballot in their respective states) have been found to have no merit, that would cause him to be found ineligible in the future?
Nobody challenged Cruz's eligibility. For the last couple of years I have argued that no one would challenge his eligibility until it was too late for us to pick someone else. Then they would try him in the arena of public opinion. (and probably in court too.)
All of the challenges were to Obama's eligibility, and as for what I know that the Federal courts missed? Quite a lot actually. This is not an issue of law that law schools spend any time on. They simply cite
"United States v Wong Kim Ark" as the defining case, and leave the impression that this precedent decides the whole matter.
They do this by equating "citizen" to "natural born citizen" with the assumption being that they mean the exact same thing. They don't.
In any case, the entire controversy regarding Obama (supposing he actually was born within the United States) hinges on whether the founders intended the English Common law understanding to apply, or whether they intended the Emmerich Vattel "Law of Nations" definition to apply.
I have developed what I believe is a compelling argument to tip the scales in the direction of Vattel's "Law of Nations" definition.
I'll trot it out directly.
