As he should have done. His job was to determine the facts and the law. He did so, avoiding wandering off on some bunny trail. His decision does two things:
Says that the words Citizen at Birth (language from USC 8, Section 1401) mean the same thing as Natural Born Citizen
Finds that Cruz is a citizen at birth (by virtue of USC 8, 1401)
Appeals will need to challenge these points, or assert that the Congress had no power to act under their plenary power under Article I, Section 8, U.S. Constitution. I believe that any appeal will affirm the decision and will reject any challenge to the Constitutional power of Congress on this point.
The notion that a law passed by Congress can determine the intent of the Framers in choosing language for the body of the Constitution is not, I believe, sustained by any binding authority. Can you cite any? Examining the intent of the Framers is not a “bunny trail.” If it is why do so many, many opinions by SCOTUS, as well as all the other courts in the nation do just that?
“Says that the words Citizen at Birth (language from USC 8, Section 1401) mean the same thing as Natural Born Citizen.”
Citizen at Birth describes how citizenship was obtained.
Natural Born Citizenship describes a Quality of Born Citizenship. A quality that most, but not all, born citizens possess. It is of no consequence in American Society except as an eligibility requirement for the office of President.
While all NBCs are Born Citizens, not all Born Citizens are NBCs. See Wong USSC.....Wong was judged a “Born Citizen” but NOT a Natural Born Citizen. See the text of the decision.