John Ivory

As always, it comes down to interpretation. If we were to take into account the writers of the Constitution, and the obvious influence that the English concept of Common Law had on the Constitution as well, you could argue that the definition of a natural-born citizen in the United States is equal to that of what it was according to Common Law, which is "... Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the ligeance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it." Considering how the Constitution as well uses Common Law concepts and terms essentially equally like Habeas Corpus and bill of attainder, it can as well be interpreted that it uses "natural-born" in the same way that English used with their Common Law. I don't know why people questioned Obama's citizenship though, because I believe he was literally born in Hawaii, so there's that.

IIRC it was because Hawaii wasn't a state at the time. Regardless, the meaning behind "natural born citizen" was not defined in the Constitution (If it was we wouldn't have to ever debate it), but the government has subsequently defined the term to mean someone who is a citizen at birth. The laws around citizenship then apply to whether or not you are a natural born citizen.

Yeah, we'd see if he's legitimate if it was ever brought to court, but honestly I hope it isn't because it's rather pointless and just deviates from debating policy. Just know that if he ever got the nomination it'd be one of the opposition's greatest talking points and most likely hard-hitting with the average American. I guarantee a lot of Americans sitting on their couches tonight looked at their husbands or wives and said "I didn't know he was born in Canada..." and that might resonate hard. All doesn't matter though, because in the end, Trump's got this nomination. Cruz doesn't matter.