Now, you need no law degree to understand the quote you posted. You only need logic and English language understanding.
First, your quote is not exclusive. It clearly states who IS (was at the time of publication) a Natural Born Citizen. Nowhere in your quote does it exclude others, does it?
And now, as a point of Law? Common Law is Moot, Case Law is MOOT, when Legislation conflicts, later on.
Logic and the English language dictate that your absolutist statement—Natural Born Citizen has ALWAYS meant Citizen at the Moment of Birth— is FALSE.
Re-read the passage from Minor v. Happersett. It is not definitive and leaves the subject open.
Can somebody just please tell me definatively what THE FREAKING HELL HIS REAL NAME IS?