Please stop reacting and think about the logical argument. If Parliament had authority to expand the meaning of natural born subject beyond the original meaning, to include those born to parents living outside the realm, and that authority was accepted as normal by the Founders...
THEN when they wrote “natural born citizen”, their understanding of what it meant would include that Congress (the functional equivalent of Parliament) could set the terms for who was considered a NBC.
I am NOT saying the Acts of Parliament govern our law. How those acts, however, affected the understood meaning of natural born subject WOULD influence what the Founders and Ratifiers MEANT when they used the phrase “natural born citizen”.
Since the most authoritative legal dictionary of the day said Parliament COULD expand the definition of NBS, then it is reasonable to assume that NBC could also be expanded in definition by Congress.
Please do not take partial sentences out of context. I have never said Parliament passes acts that bind the USA. But if the Founders believed Parliament could expand on the definition of NBS, then in the absence of any other evidence, it is reasonable to assume Congress can expand the definition of NBC beyond the one every legal analysis has for NBS - born within the borders, but not including those born to ambassadors, invading armies, or property (slaves) or embedded nations (Indians).
There has never been a formal ruling by the US Supreme Court on this. However, the decision on WKA in 1898 certainly supports it. If Cruz runs, there MAY be a US Supreme Court ruling. My guess, however, is that the courts would leave it with Congress, and Congress would say Ted Cruz was born a citizen and thus is a NBC. And since CONGRESS gets to decide if the Electoral votes count, THEY are the ones who will decide.
Congress has no such authority.
THEN when they wrote “natural born citizen”, their understanding of what it meant would include that Congress (the functional equivalent of Parliament) could set the terms for who was considered a NBC.
I am NOT saying the Acts of Parliament govern our law. How those acts, however, affected the understood meaning of natural born subject WOULD influence what the Founders and Ratifiers MEANT when they used the phrase “natural born citizen”.
Since the most authoritative legal dictionary of the day said Parliament COULD expand the definition of NBS, then it is reasonable to assume that NBC could also be expanded in definition by Congress.
I think there is extremely good reason to believe that the Framers of the Constitution did in fact believe that Congress had the ability to specify who, in addition to those born on US soil, was a natural born citizen.
First, you've noted the historical precedent.
But beyond that... our First Congress CLEARLY SPECIFIED that the children born overseas to US citizens were to be considered natural born citizens.
And who was in our First Congress?
39 delegates to the Convention signed the Constitution.
6 of those were in our first House.
9 of them - William Samuel Johnson, Richard Bassett, George Read, William Few, John Langdon, William Paterson, Rufus King, Robert Morris, and Pierce Butler - were in our first Senate.
And 1 of them - Washington - was our first President.
So a good 40% of those who signed the Constitution were in on the approval of that 1790 Act, and the provision that specified that children born abroad to US citizens were natural born citizens doesn't seem to have been controversial at all.
The 6 Signers represented only about 10% of the House, but the 9 Signers in the Senate made up more than a third of that body.
And of course, President Washington signed the bill into law on March 26, 1790.
So 40% of those who signed the Constitution were in on naming children born abroad of US citizens as "natural born citizens." Obviously, they must have believed that Congress had the power to specify that, or somebody would have objected.
I also believe I recall reading in the debates of the First Congress that someone DID object to some measure that they thought Congress didn't have the authority to legislate. Not 100% certain it was the First Congress, but I'm fairly sure it was.