Article II Presidential Eligibility Controversy
Another attorney that believes the United States Constitution is a dictionary. Ignores mountain of evidence.
Attorney Donald Scarinci excerpts via Politicker NJ:
Even if the Naturalization Act of 1790 was applicable, and, it's not, it wouldn't be helpful to Cruz being he's not the child of U.S. CitizenS at the time of his birth in Canada. Reports say they were naturalized Canadian citizens.
Some argue the "natural born Citizen" wording in the Act defined "natural born Citizen" even though five years later at the approval of President George Washington the "natural born Citizen" language was removed.
It's even been argued the reason that they removed the "natural born" language from the subsequent Naturalization Act (1795) was because it reads smoother without the "natural born" language in it. That's complete rubbish!
Although Scarinci cited John Jay's letter to General George Washington he ignored the mountain of evidence surrounding the historical meaning of the "natural born Citizen" language in Article II Section 1 Clause 5.
22Tula reminded readers a few day ago of just two of the many examples where NBC originated:
"Historic Mount Vernon Returns Copy of Rare Book Borrowed by George Washington in 1789 to The New York Society Library" ~ pdf
John Jay points to Vattel in 1785. That's almost 2 years before the signing of the U.S. Constitution (September 17, 1787).
Jay To The President Of Congress,
Office For Foreign Affairs,
24th November, 1785.
As most readers here know Vattel defined "natural born Citizen" as:
“The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”