I agree that the common understanding determines the meaning of words, but it does not determine the meaning of facts.
Yes, the people can change what words mean, and have done so over the years. The word "gay" comes to mind.
But the common understanding of people cannot change what the words originally meant, and constitutional law is based on what they meant at the time they were incorporated into our laws.
Except to the extent subsequent constitutional enactments change that meaning.
Prior to the passage of the 14th Amendment, there was no constitutional definition of what constituted a citizen, and that includes whether someone was a "natural born citizen" - the Constitution originally left that phrase completely undefined. Although regardless of whether you go with jus solis or jus sanguinas, The most reasonable textual interpretation of "natural born citizen" is someone who was a citizen the moment they were born.
Whatever ambiguity existed was resolved by Section 1 of 14th Amendment, which not only drew a distinction between citizens who are born, and those who are naturalized, but also is not limited to the context of slavery as slavery is not mentioned anywhere in that Section.
I think creating threeclasses of citizen, those who are "natural born", those who are citizens at birth, and those were naturalized is not a concept supported anywhere in either the original Constitution, or by any of its Amendments. I know you don't agree with that, and that's okay. I'm not going to go around and around on this for the 50th time in the last decade or so. I think the textual meaning is pretty clear, and I'll just leave it at that. Feel free to have the last word.