The only time Bayard's claim that "It is not necessary that a man should be born in this country, to be 'a natural born citizen.' It is only requisite that he should be a citizen by birth, and that is the case with all the children of citizens who have ever resided in this country, though born in a foreign country." was true was the period between the Naturalization Acts of 1790 and 1795.
If Bayard's claim were true the First Congress would have no need to include this in the 1790 Act.
Surely the Father of the Constitution James Madison, Abraham Baldwin, Daniel Carroll, George Clymer, Thomas Fitzsimons, Nicholas Gilman, William Samuel Johnson, Richard Bassett, George Read, William Few, John Langdon, William Paterson, Rufus King, Robert Morris, Pierce Butler, and President George Washington knew what they were doing when they passed the 1790 Act.
Maybe they had a big party and all got roaring drunk. In the House, AND in the Senate, and in the White House with President Washington. And maybe someone said, "Hey! I know what. Lissen t' thish. Lesh all pass some stupid-ash bill where we don't know wha' the 'ell we're talkin' 'bout."
How about this: President George Washington, and Father of the Constitution James Madison, and all together 40% of the men who signed the Constitution knew exactly what they were talking about when they passed that Act.
sound familiar? it should, you've had a few variations on this theme. here's one http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3038670/posts?page=159#159
Yes, we've been over it several times already.
I said that you had a point, but I also noted that neither Chief Justice Marshall, nor Justice Story, nor Chancellor Kent, nor James Bayard agreed with you.
If Cruz runs and someone really wants to contest his eligibility on those grounds, they might sue, and if the case should reach the Supreme Court, I would expect a really good lawyer to pursue that line of argument.
I also expect that it would fail, for the reasons I've discussed in detail earlier.