“The first is citizenship attained by operation of law (as your post amply proves). The second is citizenship attained by operation of nature(that is, by descent).”
Okay, now I see what’s up with the prepositions. You realize of course this has nothing to do with the Constitution.
It doesn’t? What’s your grounds for concluding that the understanding of “natural born citizen” at the time of the signing has nothing to do with how to interpret the Constitution?