“Then how does Original Intent work with SCOTUS opinions, Mr Rogers?”
It is called common law, and the common law term “natural born subject” that reveals what the original intent was - not a phrase found in a poorly translated philosophy book AFTER the Constitution was written.
Nor do YOU get to define it YOUR way. Not without evidence, which you do not have.
If you look at the “phrase found in a poorly translated philosophy book” (it's actually a Law Dictionary), you'll note that it references Blackstone's Commentaries.
Are you now saying that you think the SCOTUS should now CEASE using Blackstone's Commentaries in its opinions to derive the Framer's understanding of common law?
Just trying to give you an opportunity to embarrass yourself a little more ...
Do you believe the President of the US should have to qualify as per the Constitution?