"Natural Born" Citizen by Kera Mickus

Recently, there has been an almost unnecessary, yet over-due, amount of conversation about the 

"natural- born citizen" clause of the Constitution, and the Founding Father's intent on its use and 

restrictions. Ted Cruz has unfortunately been the main subject, with Rubio, Jindal, and Santorum trailing in  a smaller talk within public forum.  "Legal experts have said Cruz" (a natural born Canadian)  "is a natural-born citizen because his mother was an American citizen when he was born in Canada, but the issue has never been settled by the federal courts." I had a argument with my own father over the fact that the Supreme Court has been given the right to amend the constitution when faced with situations (like this) that may no longer accommodate a large portion of Americans. In some states, common law marriage is respected with couples that have lived together 10+ years but have never legally written their spouses name in a formal document. Or what about George Washington's farewell address, where he specifically states that future America's dealings should abstain from political involvement in other countries dealings, where in 1919, America refused to join the League of Nations; however, late 1940s, America re-addresses the issue and submits (This does come after the take-down of several dictators and foreign leaders and a replacement.)

These are only a couple of examples of prior events in America that no longer uphold present American values. Should a man that holds all eligibility and requirements needed to rule our country, who has either been naturalized or respected political affiliation within a government, and who has already been quite involved in a high office of said government, be turned down for office because of a constitution that may need to be reviewed by federal courts?

(P.S this is not a pro-Cruz debate)
Original Source: Tal Kopan, 
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/11/politics/rand-paul-ted-cruz-canadian-born-citizenship/index.html