No, it is the result of strict construction, since the US follows common law in many things. To paraphrase Justice Scalia quoted above, if you want to know what the Founders meant, look to English common law and Blackstone. The situation has changed, so change the Constitution and the law. Don't claim that the decisions don't exist.
Even so, it still overlooks the fact that at this time it was an established aspect of English law that Children followed the allegiance of their father.
Wrong. Go read up on it and you'll see English common law said that born on the soil = natural born, no matter the father's status (usual diplomatic exceptions). You'll see it referred to in several of the cases we've been discussing here. But you already know that, don't you?
They abrogated English Common law in many particulars, among them the most prominent was the question of what constitutes an American Citizen. If you will recall, we fought a Second war against the British on this very point. British Common law asserted that the children of a British Subject was also a British Subject. We disagreed. For a more in depth explanation of the difference between American Law regarding citizenship, and British law regarding citizenship, read this.
I doubt you will though.
Wrong. Go read up on it and you'll see English common law said that born on the soil = natural born, no matter the father's status (usual diplomatic exceptions). You'll see it referred to in several of the cases we've been discussing here. But you already know that, don't you?
English Children born anywhere are English Subjects. Of course, *we* disagreed. You did learn about the war of 1812 didn't you?