I still contend you are wrong. Here is the 14th Amendment:
The 14th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified on July 9, 1868, and granted citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States,” which included former slaves recently freed. In addition, it forbids states from denying any person "life, liberty or property, without due process of law" or to "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” By directly mentioning the role of the states, the 14th Amendment greatly expanded the protection of civil rights to all Americans and is cited in more litigation than any other amendment.
Show me where in the amendment that it says they are natural born citizens.
It doesn't, it just proclaims they are citizens, period.
Furthermore, Cruz like Obama and Rubio, were determined to be citizens by virtue of Immigration Acts passed in Congress as the power given to Congress by the Constitution to determine how citizenship can be acquired, via naturalization or by virtue of birth on or off American soil.
A natural born citizen needs neither the 14th amendment or Immigration Acts to determine their citizenship. That means only children born of American parents on American soil are natural born citizens.
It is a good point, but consider:
Except for the one circumstance of eligibility for President, there is no difference between citizens at birth and naturalized citizens so the anchor babies are citizens, period,
Secondly, the implement of the Constitution is through legislation and in this case the current law is USC 8, Section 1401 which clearly states that anyone born on U.S. soil is a citizen at birth (aka natural born citizen).
Like any other constitutional dispute, the procedure is to challenge the law on constitutional grounds and get a ruling from the Court to strike down the law. This law has never been challenged on Presidential eligibility rules, and until the PA court decision, the courts have never heard a specific case on Presidential eligibility. Well, now we have one, so those who disagree can join with the appeal of the PA Supreme Court decision and go boldly forth. The courts have given lots of hints on what will happen when they see a case and it’s not good for your point of view. Good luck.