That the "natural born citizen" language for presidential eligibility is much in dispute. There are conflicting authorities at the highest level and the majority of them, as well as that of many Framers, denies the influence of the English Common law as having determined the choice of language in question. Americans, in particular, are not "subjects" of a monarch. That concept was rejected, particularly in the War of 1812.
The 1790 Act was repealed, specifically because of commentary at the time that it was not constitutional. Because of that criticism in 1795 the 1790 Act was revised and replaced, removing the language about "natural born citizen" by removing the word "natural." Through numerous subsequent revisions for over a 150 years it was never restored to the original, much criticized use, of the natural born citizen phrase.
You clearly do not understand Marbury v. Madison. The power to interpret the meaning of the words in the Constitution has, forever since, been applied by analyzing the intent of the Framers at the time that they wrote the Constitution, never by analyzing the intent of Congress in passing law as if Congress could define what the Framers meant.
You chose to ignore the language not only of Waite in Minor v. Happersett but of Marshall in The Venus and Story in Shanks v. Dupont and in his authoritative treatise as well as that of many others of the Framers and the legal authorities of that time. While the issue has not been definitely decided by the SCOTUS, when and if they do decide it, they will not decide based upon anything said in the United States Code but rather upon what was intended by the choice of the actual language used in Article II, not upon your cock-a-mamie idea that a statute can define what is in the Constitution. Neither Marbury v. Madison nor any other authority supports that notion.
Take your case forward counselor, I will be watching with rapt interest. It’s not going to turn out for your liking.
As you point out, the First Congress exercised its power over Naturalization in 1790. As you well know, the laws have been replaced, modified, and changes over the years. That’s not the point. The point is that the Congress believed in 1790 that their power to establish a uniform rule of Naturalization included their right to define all classes of citizenship. Has that authority of the Congress every been challenged for citizens at birth.
This could be argued from the point of view of the Framers, but all that I have heard to date has been arguments over the definition of the phrase “Natural Born Citizens” I haven’t heard any arguments about the concern about some liege of some foreign monarch using subterfuge or money to seize the office of Presidency. Of course, that discussion wouldn’t help their argument, so semantics are the only point left.
Interestingly, substitute “monarch” with “Super PAC” or “Big Banks” and the argument would directly apply to modern day politics. I’m guessing that no one would be interested in going that direction except possibly Bernie Sanders.
Perhaps you will get a chance to weigh in at some point. Good luck.