As utterly and demonstrably false as false can be. Read the post.
If a law has been passed before one is born and is in force when one was born, does meeting the generous provisions of that law at birth make one a natural born citizen?
It would not "make" it so, but it could indeed confirm it.
Or does the original intent of the constitution in regards to what they meant by "natural-born" SUPERCEDE the law that was passed long after that?
The Constitution cannot be legitimately amended except by the process defined in Article V. But... First of all, you can not know what the framers intended by the phrase Natural Born Citizen, despite the supreme level of confidence that you might feel. There is a wide range of opinion on the issue ranging from idiotic to the uninformed. Yours is toward the "uninformed" end of the spectrum.
The author of the article which you appear not to have taken the time to read, provides the most balanced, insightful and realistic perspective I have read in ten years. This is the case despite it not being a scholarly exposition, but merely a summary level rebuttal of the WAPO screed, which was off-the-charts uninformed.
This author ought to take the time to expand these ideas into a full length and complete exposition on the subject. It would likely become the standard treatise on Natural Born Citizenship.
RE: There is a wide range of opinion on the issue ranging from idiotic to the uninformed. Yours is toward the “uninformed” end of the spectrum.
I never expressed an opinion in this thread. I simply ASKED a question based on what the poster declared. Which is this: “Senator Cruz was made a citizen solely by virtue of the generous provisions of the 1952 Immigration and Naturalization Act.”