All statute law is subservient to, and (should be) reliant upon the Constitution. Any law that is repugnant to the Constitution is without force, and is invalid on its face.
You quote Vattel, yet curiously don’t seem to follow his reasoning that the child’s citizenship derives from their father’s.
Even if you only accept that one excerpt, you then concede that Ted Cruz is not eligible, due to his father’s citizenship at his birth.
I hate repeating my self multiple times. So, you agree with Vattel on the primacy of citizenship by family descent, but you insist on maintaining your 18th century insistence on patrilineage. How quaint of you.
Do you also insist that wives automatically follow the citizenship of their husbands? For you cannot have it both ways. You can't live with one foot in the 21st century and the other firmly planted in 1787. With the abandonment of of one came the abandonment of the other. That's why today citizenship by descent can flow from either parent and do so quite 'naturally'.