What about the Naturalization Act of 1790? That law stipulates that the child of a woman who is a citizen is a “natural born citizen” if the father was ever a resident of the country, which Cruz’s father was prior to obtaining Canadian citizenship.
The truth of the matter is “natural born citizen” was never formally defined in the constitution itself, and it seems to me that The Naturalization Law of 1790 comes as close to settling this as anything.
Also, the constitution was ratified in 1788. This law came after ratification, a point I’m only making because Mollypitcher1 keeps saying 1791 (which is when the Bill of Rights was ratified)
The Naturalization Act of 1790 was REPEALED in 1795, due in part to concerns about possible negative repercussions to the natural born citizen provisions of Article II. Note the emphasis in the 1790 Act on the FATHER. The framers were patriarchical, and they believed that the citizenship of the children followed the citizenship condition of the FATHERS. That emphasis was due in large measure to their reliance upon the Emmerich de Vattel definition of natural born citizen derived from the “Law of Nations” which is referred to in the opening clause of Article I.
The only definition for a constitutional term within the constitution is for the crime of treason. There is no definition for high crimes and misdemeanors either, but that has not stopped impeachment matters from proceeding.
Also, even in the 1790 Act, the wording of it made reference to parent(s) plural, not singular.
Finally, NO STATUTE can modify the meaning or intent of a constitutional provision. That can only be done thru an Article V amendment process.