That is not true. The only two ways to gain US citizenship before 1868 were Naturalization and birth to American parents. In the 1855 Naturalization Act, US law declared that all alien women who married American men automatically became US citizens. Since there was no ius soli in 1855 that means that all people born to American Fathers were de factorequired to have two US citizen parents to be considered natural born citizens from at least 1855-1868. All American children had two US parents unless they were naturalized or illegitimate.
And in fact, the Supreme Court has said that NBC and the 14th are restatements of the same principle, in effect during colonial times, and never changed.
Yeah, that is your interpretation of what they said, but even if your interpretation was correct, that doesn't mean that SCOTUS got the decision right. SCOTUS has also said that the government has the power to force American citizens to buy health insurance, and Obamacare is a tax not a penalty, Roe v. Wade etc. The Supreme Court changes it's mind and has contradicted itself before. There is no way to say they wont' do it again. They likewise are not consistent on citizenship, depending on the point in American history you look at their rulings.
In any case, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, your citizenship was inherited solely from your father, and in many countries the the wife automatically would inherit her husband's citizenship from the husband. The citizenship of the child passed solely through the father's line except in the cases of unknown parentage. In the 20th century, the principle of dual citizenship was introduced to the law, and both parents were given the right to pass on citizenship to their children. This is completely anathema to the principle of the president being a natural born citizen. You cannot actively accept two countries citizenship after the age of 18 and still be considered yourself eligible for the presidency.
Thus when I say citizenship is inherited through the parents, I am referring to general parentage that existed before both parents were capable of passing on the citizenship of separate countries to their children. The key parent involved in natural born citizenship was typically the father owing to cultural circumstances which existed at the time of the Founding. The Founders never intended to have a dual citizen parent.
“Since there was no ius soli in 1855 that means that all people born to American Fathers were de factorequired to have two US citizen parents...”
Wrong. As made clear in the extensive quotes in WKA, there had NEVER been a requirement for two citizen parents for anyone born in the USA.
“In any case, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, your citizenship was inherited solely from your father...”
This is a total false statement. It has no connection with reality. The 1844 case of Lynch discussed the US idea of citizenship at length. It concluded that someone born within the USA, of two alien parents, was undoubtedly a natural born citizen:
“And the constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle, in the section which defines the qualification of the President. “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,” &c. The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not.”
Lynch_v_Clarke_1844
In 1795: “The children of aliens, born in this state, are considered as natural born subjects, and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.”
Zephaniah Swift, A system of the laws of the state of Connecticut
“As the President is required to be a native citizen of the United States…. Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States.”
James Kent, COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW (1826)
A very respectable political writer makes the following pertinent remarks upon this subject. “Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it.”
St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES (1803)
“The country where one is born, how accidental soever his birth in that place may have been, and although his parents belong to another country, is that to which he owes allegiance. Hence the expression natural born subject or citizen, & all the relations thereout growing.”
Leake v. Gilchrist, 13 N.C. 73 (N.C. 1829)
I could go on. There is no doubt that the USA has always followed birth within the country as the primary means of being born a citizen, without regard for the citizenship of the father. The father’s citizenship only mattered in certain areas pertaining to international law, such as born on the high seas, or those born in disputed territories.
You are simply totally wrong about the facts.