Glad you agree. The reasoning of the Supreme Court and lower courts is clear: to define "natural-born citizen," you must resort to "common law." You cannot find resort in an English translation of de Vattel that just so happened to have translated his French to "natural-born citizen," particularly since it is not beyond dispute that "natural-born citizen" is the ONLY way to translate that phrase.
And the word, “air force”, which did not exist during the time of our Founding Fathers, is assumed to be part of the military they desired for our defense — the intention of their words was understood. There was no need to amend the Constitution because the concept of an air force is indisputably military. Originalism. A court could theoretically hold a judicial review on whether an “air force” is constitutional. I don’t think Scalia would conclude that we can’t have one.
On the other hand, the court could decide whether a Federal park is Constitutional, or dust bowl prevention. They are not. We clearly need dust bowl prevention, but that should have been amended in the Constitution, not merely legislated.