What is your concept of the US Constitution's requirement that the President be a "natural born" citizen?

As recent article posted on the ARRA News Service by Rod Martin: "Slam Dunk: Who Says Ted Cruz is a Natural Born Citizen? George Washington and James Madison"
http://arkansasgopwing.blogspot.com/2016/02/slam-dunk-who-says-ted-cruz-is-natural.html

Consider thes questions: At what time did anyone who was born on foreign soil (to at least one American parent) have to be naturalized? Once you've answered this what law states they have to do so?

Here is a good rendition of what NBC means, written by another Constitutional Scholar. https://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/category/natural-born-citizen/

“Natural Born Citizen” and Coverture.

At the common law, Husband and wife were “one” and The Man was The One. The legal name of this concept is “coverture”.

Married women weren’t separate legal entities in their own right. Their legal identity was subsumed under their Husband’s. Married women weren’t “citizens” in their own right.

Vattel and our Framers had the FATHER in mind in their concept of “natural born citizen”: The Man is the one who counts!

Later on, with Married Womens’ Property Acts in various States, female suffrage with the 19th Amendment, etc., this legal fiction of the wife’s legal identity being subsumed into that of her husbands, was ended. [However, as a holdover, married women still sometimes refer to themselves as Mrs. John Smith instead of Mrs. Mary Smith.]

At the time of our Framing, coverture was in full force and effect. SO it was the FATHER’s citizenship which counted. That is the original intent. That intent remains until Art. II, Sec. 1, clause 5 is amended pursuant to Art. V. I propose an amendment saying that both the Mother and Father must be US Citizens at the time of their child’s birth for the child to be a “natural born citizen” within the meaning of Art. II, Sec. 1, clause 5.

So under the original intent of Art. II, Sec. 1, cl. 5 – which original intent continues until changed by amendment – IT DOESN’T MATTER WHO Barack Hussain Obama’s mother was, and it doesn’t matter WHO Ted Cruz’ mother is: Their fathers were not US citizens at the times they were born so THEY ARE NOT “natural born citizens”.

I believe its taken the wrong way by many. If you are a natural born citizen and your child is born outside the USA, then that child should also fall under natural born citizen. Maybe that mom or dad was working outside the USA, maybe they were in the Military like I was when my children were born when I was in japan. Should not be born in the USA!

There were eight attempts to pass legislation in Congress to either modify or eliminate the requirement for the POTUS to be a natural born citizen between 2003 - 2008. That occurred just prior to a fellow named Obama arrived on the scene. Perhaps that is just a coincidence, but I doubt it.

1. On June 11, 2003 Democrat House member Vic Snyder [AR-2] introduced H.J.R 59 in the 108th Congress - “Constitutional Amendment - Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 35 years and who has been a resident within the United States for at least 14 years eligible to hold the office of President or Vice President.” – Co-Sponsors: Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [MI-14]; Rep Delahunt, William D. [MA-10]; Rep Frank, Barney [MA-4]; Rep Issa, Darrell E. [CA-49]; Rep LaHood, Ray [IL-18]; Rep Shays, Christopher [CT-4].

2. On September 3, 2003, Rep. John Conyers [MI] introduced H.J.R. 67 – “Constitutional Amendment - Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 20 years eligible to hold the office of President.” – Co-Sponsor Rep Sherman, Brad [CA-27]

3. On February 25, 2004, Republican Senator Don Nickles [OK] attempted to counter the growing Democrat onslaught aimed at removing the natural-born citizen requirement for president in S.2128 - “Natural Born Citizen Act - Defines the constitutional term "natural born citizen," to establish eligibility for the Office of President” – also getting the definition of natural born citizen wrong. – Co-sponsors Sen Inhofe, James M. [OK]; Sen Landrieu, Mary L. [LA]

4. On September 15, 2004 – as Barack Obama was about to be introduced as the new messiah of the Democrat Party at the DNC convention, Rep Dana Rohrabacher [CA-46] introduced H.J.R. 104 – “Constitutional Amendment - Makes eligible for the Office of the President non-native born persons who have held U.S. citizenship for at least 20 years and who are otherwise eligible to hold such Office.” – No co-sponsors.

5. Again on January 4, 2005, Rep John Conyers [MI] introduced H.J.R. 2 to the 109th Congress – “Constitutional Amendment - Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 20 years eligible to hold the Office of President.”
– Co-Sponsor Rep Sherman, Brad [CA-27]

6. Rep Dana Rohrabacher [CA-46] tries again on February 1, 2005 in H.J.R. 15 – “Constitutional Amendment - Makes eligible for the Office of the President non-native born persons who have held U.S. citizenship for at least 20 years and who are otherwise eligible to hold such Office.” – No Co-Sponsor

7. On April 14, 2005, Rep Vic Snyder [AR-2] tries yet again with H.J.R. 42 – “Constitutional Amendment - Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 35 years and who has been a resident within the United States for at least 14 years eligible to hold the office of President or Vice President.”
– Co-Sponsor Rep Shays, Christopher [CT-4]

How about we look at why the requirement to be a "natural born" citizen is paramount? The reason for this is to best ensure the loyalty of the individual aspiring to be our President. It suggests that someone who is born a citizen and remains a citizen throughout their lives will more likely remain loyal to this country. It also avoids "carpet bagging".

Personally I think we're getting too caught up with the perceptions of the words vs. the intent of the law. Is there any reason why McCain or Cruz should be considered less loyal to the US and more loyal to Panama/Canada respectively? What about another individual who was born to US parents, in a US state but spent their life since then in another country? If you're answer here is let the voter decide, regardless of how long the individual spent outside the US, shouldn't we say the same for those who were born as US citizens in another country? What about those who are born in international waters?

I am all for adhering to the Constitution, but I am not convinced the founders meant to have the requirement for President to be strictly afforded to those who were physically born here, regardless of the fact they had American parents.

After adding some historically proper information to the discussion and checking the actual US Code in reference to US Nationality, US Citizenship, and some of the interesting combinations thereof; I find it interesting enough, that if you applied a common sense understanding of the two parts that are the true basis of what should be the legal foundation and understanding, I am amazed that people do not understand what a "natural born citizen" is.
The common sense conceptual understanding that a "natural born citizen" is one that is an US "national AND citizen" AT birth; which is defined in 8 USC Section 1401 (8 USC Chapter 12 Subchapter III Part I Section 1401). In addition for clarifications sake and using a common sense reading of the applicable section of the US Code that defines what a "Nationals but not citizens of the US at birth" is - Section 1408. The sections that throw everyone for a loop are the intervening sections between Sections 1401 and 1408.

For you to be a "natural born" US citizen, both of your parents must be US citizens. The reason the framers of our Constitution specifically stated that the President must be a natural born citizen versus just a citizen is because they wanted to minimize the potential for any President to have loyalties to another country, which they felt someone born of foreign parents potentially could have.

• On July 25, 1787, Founder John Jay recommended in a letter to members of the Constitutional Convention that the term “Natural Born Citizen” (synonymous with True Citizen) be placed in Article II as a requirement for the Office of President and Commander-in-Chief, stating that only a Natural Born Citizen of the United States would be eligible for high office. Members of the Constitutional Convention agreed, adding the condition to the document that would be ratified less than two months later.

• In September of 1787, the ratified U.S. Constitution included a Natural Law term Natural Born Citizen, synonymous with the term “True Citizen,” as a condition for access to the Oval Office, in Article II. You can also find in Article I, the enumerated power of Congress to enforce The Law of Nations, which means enforce all Rights under Natural Law as defined in The Law of Nations.

“As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.”

“The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent.”

“I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”

“It is asked whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens? The laws have decided this question in several countries, and their regulations must be followed. (59) By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights (§ 212); the place of birth produces no change in this particular,” - Section 215 pertaining to children of citizens born abroad, which refers back to Section 212.

Has anyone ever heard of a fellow named Vattel? Or, "Law of Nations" which is a law book he authored? The only definition of natural born citizen is to one familiar to the authors of the Constitution back in the late 1700s.