What law?
You can't point to any such law. It doesn't exist.
What you mean is: "Bayard's claim... is unsubstantiated and contradicted by my opinion. And that of a few other geniuses on the internet."
Because there's no law that contradicts Bayard / Marshall / Story / Kent.
The challenge was, that naturalized citizens are eligible. Bayard does not make this claim.
Now you're just trying to squirm your way out. It won't work.
The entire discussion was about whether people born US citizens abroad (like Ted Cruz) are natural born citizens.
Bayard says clearly and unequivocally that they are. Chief Justice Marshall, Justice Joseph Story, and Chancellor James Kent all agree.
Bayard’s error is the claim that it is “not necessary that a man should be born in this country, to be ‘a natural born citizen.’”. He cites no law which supports this claim, a claim which in fact is contradicted by law: the citizenship of children born outside the United States to citizen parents has always depended upon operation of law, only during 1790-1795 were such children declared to be in law “natural born citizen”.
Obviously, the Great Chief Justice John Marshall, Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, and Chancellor James Kent followed the same line of reasoning I referred to above, or one extremely similar. Because all of these giants of American Constitutional law agree that Bayard is NOT in error.
Ah, but you're a birther. So that automatically makes you a genius of law smarter and more authoritative than Chief Justice Marshall, Justice Story, and Chancellor Kent - combined.
What law? Seriously? The Naturalization Act of 1795 et seq which naturalize foreign born children of US citizens declaring them in law “citizen”. Bayard’s claim is contrary to the letter of the law.
I’m surprised you cite Bayard. He never claims that naturalized citizens are eligible.
To support your claim that some naturalized citizens are “natural born citizens” and other naturalized citizens are not, you would have been better served by citing the Naturalization Act of 1790.
Only between 1790 and 1795 when the 1790 act was repealed was there such a distinction in law.
It is worth noting that during this period those naturalized as “natural born citizens” were distinguished from the others naturalized as “citizens” by parental US citizenship.
The only time a class of persons was explicitedly declared in law as “natural born citizen” such citizenship was dependant upon parental US citizenship.
The law at the time of Cruz’s birth declared him in law a “citizen”.