Inconsequential what disagreements you might find when the laws of the day in 1790 and 1795 declare children born overseas to US citizens to be both “natural born” and citizens by right of birth and citizens by descent.
In other words, being a BORN citizen and being a natural born citizen were indistinguishable in those laws. They show a broad usage of the term “natural born citizen” instead of a narrow one.
Those were the ACTUAL laws written by those also participant to those discussions and signed by George Washington who also PRESIDED OVER the Constitutional Convention, meaning he would have known a thing or two himself but STILL chose to sign those laws.
And current law is a slam dunk for Cruz’s eligibility. So, whether the history of actual US law or the law currently in effect, Cruz is eligible.
So, quit bellyachin’ and put this discussion behind us and get on board the anti-ObamaCare train.
Cruz hasn’t even declared for the presidency. It’s a non-issue for about 3 years.
You can't amend the Constitution with an act of congress. That requires ratification by two thirds of the states.
Even the language of the Nationality act of 1790, later repealed by the act of 1795, would not have made Ted Cruz eligible for the presidency.