/// Correct. Except that in the case of Cruz, his father resided in the US but I believe never became a US citizen. So the early law/concept boils down to the question of whether one citizen parent, in Cruz's case the mother, I'd enough to pass on NBC, or if both parents are necessary. Or, in the case of the time of the founders, it could only be passed on by a citizen father and not a citizen mother.
If you are willing to accept that a 1790 law can set the conditions under which one is considered a NBC, then the 1952 law that was in effect at the time Cruz was born also can. The real question is whether NBC has an inherent definition other than "citizen at birth in accordance with the laws of the land." I have not seen anything convincing on the inherent definition, so I will assume congress has the leeway to pass the first order of business in naturalization law - identifying ho has no need of naturalization.
Mebbe. But in 1790 there was no 14th Amendment adding to the definition of "person," while in 1952 there was. So the bottom line is which "person" are we talking about - one of "the people" or a 14th Amendment statutory "individual"? Fact is, a lot of federal courts won't even recognize citations from before the 14th Amendment. So it's a relevant issue concerning the current definition of NBC, which we know existed all the way back at the founding.