1 top of table + 1 top of table = tops of tables.
1 child of citizen + 1 child of citizen = children of citizens.
Each citizen child does not require 2 citizen parents any more than each table top requires two tables.
You do know that your argument makes no sense in the context of a legal argument?
When construing a Constitutional term-of-art such as 'natural born Citizen', the court must determine it's intended meaning at the time it was created. That is what the court mean then it says something like this, from the
Minor opinion.
At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar
So, legally, if you want to construe what the court ment when it said
all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens
you must do the same.
So, could the court (as I believe your 'logic 101' course has taught you) have ment that only 1 parent had to be a US citizen, and the other could be a citizen of another country?
NO
Why not? You can not construe the meaning that way, because it was not possible at the time. At the time, when a women married an alien - and no, I don't want to get into the whole bastard implications with you - she automatically aquired the citizenship of her husband, and consequently lost her US citizenship. So there is no way to construe the phrase "born in a country of parents who were its citizens" to mean anything other than both parents!