That is only true if you assume that the term “natural-born” already have a common-law meaning at the time the constitution was written, AND that the term excluded people born to parents from the country but who were out of the country at the time of birth.
The point of the argument made here is that if you look at the term as used in those days, it would have already granted citizenship.
That congress passed a law to make it clear what this meant is not germane, unless you believe that without any law, there would be a clear answer to the question.
Note that McCain was judged to be a natural-born citizen even though he was born before the latest law was passed.
It would be nice in some cases if the founding fathers had included a glossary of terms, and had spent a little more time defining what they were talking about. Of course, they couldn’t have anticipated our modern ability to twist every word that exists. But I believe if they spent a year here today, and went back, they could have written a constitution that had much better protection against the tyranny that has befallen us.
I’m convinced the commerce clause would be a section all on its own, because that is the most certain area where what we do today isn’t anything like what they thought.
Can you really believe it was different in their day?
“Note that McCain was judged to be a natural-born citizen even though he was born before the latest law was passed.”
Being born on American soil in the Canal Zone. Something that doesn’t apply to Cruz.
Being born in British America (Canada Now) makes you British under Common Law. The same "Common Law" you cite to make one an American, if born here, makes one a Canadian if born there. We are either following "common law" or we are not. Which is it?