c. The Constitution doesn not define "natural born". The "Act to establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization," enacted March 26, 1790, (1 Stat. 103, 104) provided that, "... the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born ... out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States."So an inoperative statute passed in 1790 does not govern citizenship laws today. Additionally, you omitted the important caveat that the Founders specified regarding fathers.d. This statute is no longer operative, however, and its formula is not included in modern nationality statutes. In any event, the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes.
As the State Department indicates, without a judicial ruling, there is no definitive answer to the question.
7 FAM 1113 NOT INCLUDED IN THE MEANING OF “IN THE UNITED STATES”If we do not automatically grant citizenship at birth to children born abroad on our military installations and diplomatic facilities, (BTW, I disagree with that policy) then any discussion about Cruz's eligibility is legitimate. I believe the courts would rule in favor of Cruz's eligibility, but that's irrelevant with respect to a discussion about citizenship laws.c. Birth on U.S. Military Base Outside of the United States or Birth on U.S. Embassy or Consulate Premises Abroad:
(1) Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic facilities are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not subject to U.S. jurisdiction and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth.”