[xzins]

The Founders ruled on it in 1790 when they said that children born to US citizens overseas were "natural born"

George Washington signed it; President Washington presided over the constitutional convention that wrote our constitution that was ratified in 1787, just 3 years before this law was passed.

So, the usage of "natural born citizen" extended to those born to US citizens overseas according to those who wrote the Constitution.

There really isn't any argument after this.

[Windflier]

The Founders ruled on it in 1790 when they said that children born to US citizens overseas were "natural born"

Citation?

[BuckeyeTexan]

Here's what the State Department's Foreign Affairs manual has to say about the 1790 Act you reference. (I am quoting from the same FAM section I cited in post #113):

c. The Constitution doesn not define "natural born". The "Act to establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization," enacted March 26, 1790, (1 Stat. 103, 104) provided that, "... the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born ... out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States."

d. This statute is no longer operative, however, and its formula is not included in modern nationality statutes. In any event, the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes.

So an inoperative statute passed in 1790 does not govern citizenship laws today. Additionally, you omitted the important caveat that the Founders specified regarding fathers.

As the State Department indicates, without a judicial ruling, there is no definitive answer to the question.