Respectfully, I think its a losing argument.
This is settled law. There are a lot of folks who are using 18th century readings to establish law that has been changed several times since its inception.
It is clear that it is up to Congress to make the laws about what is natural born. They have done so. Several times.
Trump looks bad when he keeps bringing it up.
I just think its much ado about nothing.
As I said, I respectfully disagree with you and those who are making the argument. There are more important issues to debate.
The OP has a cite to a 1971 decision. I think a fair read of 'settled law" is law that existed long ago, and has been applied in a consistent fashion over a long period of time, up to and including the present. Just saying, if a 1971 decision happens to cite 18th century readings, and the modern decision endorses the same analysis and conclusion as being settled law, then the 18th century readings continue to have effect, directly through modern decisions.
-- It is clear that it is up to Congress to make the laws about what is natural born. --
The words of the constitution make it clear that Congress has the power to make rules of naturalization. You have to use rhetorical and logical cheats to convert that into a power to make a naturalized citizen into a natural born citizen.
-- I just think its much ado about nothing. --
It is much ado. Different people will attach different degrees of significance to it. I do agree that most people would reject the constitutional rule, and accept any citizen as a presidential candidate.