I'm not sure there are any originalists in today's legal system.
Point taken but the need to interpret "natural born citizen" by how it was understood at the time according to natural law still stands. It does not matter, Constitutionally, if today we do not hold to the concept of natural law. The framers did and this is what they understood by "natural born citizen."
Originalism is not going to be a winning argument in this case. There may be some other creative argument, but the courts aren’t going to revive originalism after burying it for a hundred years.