“But you concede that from the founding until 1934, persons born abroad to a citizen mother and alien father were not NBC, and after 1934 they were. How is that not changing the scope of NBC by statute?”
If Congress had not passed the naturalization act of 1790, children born abroad to US citizens would not definitively be natural born citizens. At the time it would have depended on which state the father was a citizen of. The uniform rule of naturalization power of Congress gives Congress the power to determine who is a citizen at birth and who must naturalize in order to become a citizen.
Same as my first comment to you, and you still seem to have trouble just grasping the meaning of those words. You seem to speak English just fine, so I think it is a mental block caused by putting a 100% of your mental effort into proving something you are completely unwilling to reconsider. It is an axiom for you. An a priori assumption. I can’t help you with that.
I have already said what will make me reconsider my position. And I am truly open. If anyone can prove that there were founders who strongly opposed the first naturalization act on the grounds that it was unconstitutional, that would merit consideration. I have looked and have not found one single, solitary shred of evidence. Therefore even IF I am wrong, I am in the good company of the founders who (according to my opponents) did not even understand the term when they wrote it into the Constitution. My position falls safely within the realm of original intent. Yours does not. Sorry. That is just how it is.
A fundamental difference between our approaches to this issue is that I am willing to consult case law on the subject, and you are not. Case law even addresses the effect of the 1790 statute. At any rate, what you are railing against is not an axiom of mine, or an a priori assumption of mine. You are railing against the case law.