Source: http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2013/06/
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 01:03:33+00:00

Document:
“[T]he weight of scholarly legal and historical opinion appears to support the notion that 'natural born citizen' means one who is entitled under the Constitution or laws of the United States to U.S. citizenship 'at birth' or 'by birth,' including any child born ‘in’ the United States (other than to foreign diplomats serving their country), the children of United States citizens born abroad of one citizen parent who has met U.S. residency requirements."
U.S. citizenship 'at birth.' Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S.
process of 'naturalization' to become a U.S. citizen."
Maskell made his 2009 statement with little force and certitude. He said that this “scholarly legal and historical opinion” “appears to support the notion” as to what the “natural born Citizen” clause means. A “notion” is defined, in relevant part, as: “1. A general idea 2. a belief; opinion 3. an inclination; whim.” Webster’s New World Dictionary of the American Language 410 (1983). Here is another definition: “1: Idea, conception 2: a belief held: opinion, view 3: whim, fancy. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary 480 (1974). And this “opinion” only “appears to support” that notion. Here, we can see that Maskell did not give us a clear and definite statement as to what the definition of a “natural born Citizen” is. Rather, he only put forth a theory that this “scholarly legal and historical opinion” supported this general idea, belief, or opinion of what the definition of a “natural born citizen” is.
While his 2011 statement contained more force, Maskell still stated that a “natural born citizen” “would mean” any person who is a “citizen by birth” or “citizen at birth,” regardless of the means by which the person obtained that birth status. Maskell said “would mean.” That means that the meaning that he gave to a “natural born citizen” is conditioned upon something else also being true. But he did not tell us what that something else is, let alone demonstrate that whatever it is, it is true. He also stated that “there is no Supreme Court case which has ruled specifically on the presidential eligibility requirements.” As we shall see below, this is not true, for there are U.S. Supreme Court cases which have addressed the “common-law” definition of a “natural-born citizen” and that is a presidential eligibility requirement.
All persons like Ted Cruz (born in Canada to a U.S “citizen” mother and non-U.S. “citizen” father) are CABs.
Therefore, all persons like Ted Cruz are NBCs.
We know that this argument is not valid because, with dogs being comprised of more than just poodles, Bubbles can be a German Shepherd or some other type of dog.
All persons like Ted Cruz are CABs.
All persons like Ted Cruz are NBCs.
This argument is valid because if the major and minor premises are true, the conclusion must be true. But while the argument is valid as to its logical form, it is not sound, meaning that the major or minor premise or both are false. This adjusted Maskell argument is not sound because its major premise is false. With the major premise being false, so is its conclusion. Let me explain. First, the major premise, all “citizens at birth” are “natural born Citizens” is false because the Founders, Framers, and Ratifiers of the Constitution did not so define a “citizens at birth” and there does not exist any evidence that they did. Second, regardless of how a “citizen at birth” may be defined, the text of Article II specifically states “natural born Citizen,” not “Citizen at Birth” or some variant thereof. Additionally, while it is true that all “natural born Citizens” are “citizens at birth,” it does not follow that all “citizens at birth” are “natural born Citizens.” If I am wrong, Bob Quasius can cite for us an authoritative source which provides that all “citizens at birth” are “natural born Citizens.” So there is the challenge. Let Bob Quasius or anyone else who might want to come to his aid provide one authoritative source which demonstrates that all “citizens at birth” are “natural born Citizens.” By doing this, he will also be proving that Jack Maskell is correct.
Anticipating that Bob Quasius will not be able to provide any such source, I have therefore demonstrated how Jack Maskell is incorrect in what he stated to be the definition of a “natural born Citizen.” Using their exact words, they made an invalid argument about who is included and excluded as a “natural born Citizen.” Even adjusting what they said to make a valid argument, they made an unsound argument, for they provided a non-existent definition of a “natural born Citizen.” Either way, Jack Maskell and Bob Quasius lose.
Now as to the correct definition of a “natural born Citizen,” here it is: A “natural born Citizen” is a child born in a country to parents who are its “citizens” at the time of the child’s birth. This is the settled definition of the clause under American national common law. See Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Section 212 Citizens and natives (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758) (“The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens”); The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253, 289 (1814) (C.J. Marshall concurring); Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. 99 (1830); Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830; Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393, 476-77 (1857) (J. Daniel concurring); Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 168-170 (1875); Ex parte Reynolds, 20 F.Cas. 582, 5 Dill. 394, No. 11,719 (C.C.W.D.Ark 1879); United States v. Ward, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D.Cal. 1890); United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 679-80 (1898) (all confirmed Vattel’s Section 212 of the The Law of Nations (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758) definition of the “natural-born citizens” who “are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens”). This is the only definition of the clause that has ever existed and which has been recognized by our U.S. Supreme Court. The conditions of being born in the country to “citizen” parents are both necessary and sufficient conditions of being a “natural born Citizen.” The definition of a “natural born Citizen” therefore excludes anyone who is either not born in the country (or its jurisdictional equivalent) or not born to parents (both parents) who are its “citizens” at the time of the child’s birth or both.
All BIC and BCPs are NBC.
All Xs are BIC and BCPs.
Therefore, all Xs are NBC.
If NBC, then BIC and BCPs.
X is not BIC and BCP.
Therefore, X is not NBC.
If and only if BIC and BCP, then NBC.
X is not BIC and BCPs.
All NBCs are BIC and BCPs.
No Xs are BIC and BCPs.
Therefore, no Xs are NBC.
The inescapable conclusion is that since Obama, Cruz, Rubio, Jindal, and Haley are neither “natural born Citizens” nor “Citizens of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution,” they are not eligible to be President.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.