Do you have any evidence to back up that assertion? It seems clear that the former United States Attorney General Edwin Meese is stating the meaning given to the term by the Founding Fathers.
The Founders would take issue with defining a natural born citizen as a subject, and Im surprised you dont take issue with it, yourself.
Where does the term "subject" appear in my post?
Meese was expressing the assumption that English common law, governing how to determine status for royal subjects, ie natural born subjects, was the origin of and therefore the root from which to derive meaning of, the term natural born citizen under a constitutional republic.
So, the English had natural born subjects in the relevant period. Not natural born citizens.
Do you really think Edwin Meese could have successfully defined terms within the Constitution all on his own, in any capacity? Assuming he could, would there be any controversy today, if he had?