The notion of "Precedent" is itself a Judicial version of the old "Tu quoque" fallacy. Courts are far more willing to follow the bad decisions of previous courts than the are to look at first principles and work out the meaning of the law for themselves. Somehow this flawed methodology has become enshrined in the church of the black robes.
You want to talk about legal ideas that are contradicted by much of our History? How about the many thousands of children born to Loyalists after July 4,1776 that were recognized by both our Government and that of the British as British Subjects? How about the hundreds of millions of slaves born in the US but who did not have US Citizenship until the 14th amendment? How about the Indians born in the US but who did not acquire citizenship until 1924?
There are hundreds of millions of exceptions to the theory that being born here makes you a citizen. There are probably more exceptions than there are citizens who were created by being born to non-American citizen parents in this nation.
If you want to look at contradictions with history, the bulk of the contradictions are on the side that says being born here to non-American citizen parents makes you a citizen. In the vast majority of the examples, this is not at all true.
Yes, let us please heed the lessons in law that History teaches us.
I’ve no interest in you jumping in and taking me out of context - so unless you can offer me a single conservative legal scholar who agrees with you, please do not bore me.
After all, what would Cruz know for example. Not like he has a Constitutional Law background or anything - ....oh, wait.........