Are you sure you understand WHY the President of the US and ONLY the President of the US was restricted to Natural Born Citizens?
Sure, but it has nothing to do with Natural Law. I don’t see the definition in Natural Law and I don’t see the requirement to restrict the President (and only the President) in Natural law. Citing Natural law in the NBC debate is the equivalent of “my opinion is obvious to me, therefore everyone should agree.”
Whose theory of Natural Law even speaks to citizenship in enough detail determine a distinction? Locke based much of his on the Bible, so maybe he did use Acts 22:27-29 to distinguish between those born citizens (the Apostle Paul was born a Roman) and those who acquired citizenship (the tribune with whom he spoke had purchased his citizenship.)
Again, the only thing I can see from Natural Law is NBC = citizen at birth. I have discussed the issue with many here on FR, and the anti-Cruz birthers (not meant as a pejorative; just convenient shorthand) are for the most part long on self-assured proclamations and short on substantiating evidence. (There is one who has posted some interesting court opinions that I still want to read through, but at first glance it looked like a case of selective editing and out-of-context quoting.) I really think that you are barking up the wrong tree with Natural Law and if there is evidence out there, it’s more likely to be found in common law or legal precedent.