When Congress adopted the Naturalization Act of 1790, it took three separate steps.
First, it adopted a uniform rule for naturalization. Second, Congress conformed its new rule to existing State practices. Third, Congress adopted a rule defining certain offspring born abroad to American citizens as "natural born citizens."
That uniform rule for naturalization provided only that a person having resided two years in the United States, and proving that he is of good character, could apply thereon to a common law court, take an oath to support the Constitution of the United States, and he would, upon the court's grant of the application, be a citizen of the United States.
Excepted from that broad and gracious rule of naturalization, the Act withheld citizenship from any person previously proscribed by a State from obtaining citizenship, except if they were allowed by an act of the legislature of the State that had refused their previous application. As for children born abroad being treated as natural born citizen, the Act provided, "And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens[.]"
If, like me, you played with other children whose logic failed them but who yearned for increased odds of winning, you probably have heard the refrain "deuces wild." In truly pathetically illogical cases, you may have heard multiple cards name wild, not just deuces. Only the dealer's call counted in that magical transformation. If, on examination of his dealt hand, your buddy, called out "deuces wild," it did not affect the rules, but it gave you a powerful hint about the card in his hand.
In the case of "natural born citizen" status, elemental constitutional fairness requires that the language of the Constitution -- not preferences personal or political -- should govern. Whether one disputes the eligibility of a Ted Cruz or a Barack Obama, the Constitution should still be trump.