It is unfortunate that the “supreme” Court has proven itself to be anti-Constitution at times. We cannot look to the Kelo Court, for example, as being godlike. Even back in the 1800s, we had creeps in that court.
The real question is not court precedent. The real question is Original Intent. I’m no lawyer, but it seems to me that many misinterpretations arose from the amendment passed after the Civil War, such as “no establishment of religion” being mushroomed to ridiculous heights.
Did people after the Civil War intend children of foreign fathers to be qualified as “natural born” and President? Our Founding Fathers did not, so who did?
Original Intent is a branch of originalism, yes, but the dominant branch is Original Meaning, which doesn't care at all about intent but rather what words would've meant to a "reasonable person" who lived at the time of ratification.