The argument for Cruz stated that laws since the Constitution have changed what is written in the Constitution. Silly me. I thought only amendments could change the Constitution.
No one changed the Constitution. It said Cruz had to be natural-born and he was.
By your logic, free speech wouldn’t apply to TV and radio, since they didn’t exist at the time of the Constitution. No reasonable interpretation of the Constitution could say the 1st amendment applied to forms of speech which the framers never knew would ever exist.
That is an incorrect, misleading and grossly oversimplified position. For example, that has never been my position. MY position has always been to rely on Vattel. Vattel NEVER insisted on Jus Soli. He uses jus soli as an indicia, true; but it is not the essential indicia for Vattel; jus sanguinis is. It is entirely within the sovereign power of the United States Congress to define the indicia it will use to determine - not grant - citizenship at birth, aka natural born citizenship. This power is precisely parallel to the power of legislatures to determine by statute the criteria by which the residency status of citizens shall be determined. And that determination does NOT serve to change the definition of 'resident' as used in the Constitution. The state of Connecticut, for example, is not forever bound to use their 1786 residence criteria just because those were the criteria in effect at the time of the ratification.
In the case of "natural born", it would require an amendment to define the term. Until that happens, it will be subject to legal interpretation.
One can only assume the Founders knew that.
This baloney endures because we allow it. You're quite right. Congress can pass laws regarding naturalization. They cannot create a naturally born citizen which is the requirement.