Legally you are correct. However, and as odd as it sounds, the 1790 Act has been cited in SR 511, the Senate Resolution resolving John McCain to be a natural-born citizen.
The Senate appears to have interpreted that Act as being indicative of Framer's intent, since so many of them were in Congress at the time that Act became law.
But, it can be argued, and I think El Gato would possibly agree, that such an Act is actually an acknowledgement that the particular aspect of citizenship in question was not addressed by the Constitution.
Nevertheless, the Act was repealed and replaced in 1795, with nearly identical language, exception being that "natural-born citizen" was replaced with merely "citizen."
It's difficult to avoid concluding, that Congress recognized that their Constitutionally enumerated power disallowed such a statute, and so the statute was revised within their power enumerated, of naturalization only.
But, intent of the Framers is what matters as far as any definitive understanding of "natural-born citizen," and so the 1790 Act will come into play, revised, repealed, revoked or what have you, doesn't matter, because it was pertinent under original intent.
Um, if you misspeak, then correct yourself, we are supposed to take the misspeak as your true intent? ... Think about it. The very fact that the 1795 Act removed the misspeak is more relevent than the original wording of 1790 Act.
But wouldn’t the 1795 repeal come into play as original intent as well, demonstrating that Congress found that clause problematic, and outside of their authority to redefine by statute, and thus also by non-binding resolution such as SR 511.
Yes I do. Also that the repeal tells us something about their aknowledgement of the limitations on their powers.
I think if someone had brought up the "military" exemptions" in both Vattel's "Law of Nations" and Blackstones "Commentaries on the Laws of England", we would all have been better served.