Actually I’m wrong about what the resolution states. It says that the Constitution doesn’t define NBC. However, it was defined several times elsewhere during the writing of the Constitution and during the hashing out of the 14th Amendment.
The trouble with that is that the founders KNEW what “Natural Born Citizen” meant. They used it SPECIFICALLY there and nowhere else. They realized that the 1790 law was a mistake and took it out by replacing the law in 1795.
The Supreme Court addressed the issue in several cases early on using the language used in "The Laws of Nations" by Vattel. The Supreme Court quoted parts of the following in those cases:
§ 212. Of the citizens and natives. “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
If you read the writings of the founding fathers it is obvious that they were influenced by Vattel (among others).