I disagree.
The Supreme Court Miller decision was "settled law" for about 70 years, with judges declaring that the right to keep and bear arms was a "collective right" of the organized Militia. This settled law was set straight by the Heller decision.
If the Founders had meant to allow a person who has only one citizen parent to be President, they could easily have said that.
Others have posted on this very thread the statute which discussed the circumstances under which a woman could pass on U.S. citizenship to her child. Statutory arrangements regarding citizenship are proof, as far as I am concerned, that the citizenship in question could never have been considered "natural born".
I will take issue with you in that what I think is immaterial, at least to me, on this matter of eligibility. As a second grader in a parochial school I told my teacher what she had listed as careers on the blackboard did not include my goal. She asked what was my goal and I said POTUSA. The teacher was dumb founded but added POTUSA to the listing. Fast forward to after WWII when my brother was killed on Okinawa and I also served in the Pacific. I went to college on the G.I. Bill. It was at that time that I came to a conclusion that my second grade dream was not realizable. My father who died a few months before I was born and my mother were non citizens when my brother and I were born in the USA. I then became very interested in the constitutional aspects of eligibility and took a serious look at my second grade aspiration. I came away then and hold today that what was adopted by the Founders did indeed prohibit either my brother or myself from being eligible for POTUSA because eligibility was limited to having parentS who were citizens. This matter is material to me. With this said I believe Cruz is also a very good person as to my beliefs for the USA but I have to weigh what I have learned against what any other person says as to eligibility.