That's helpful.
You are chewing on a problem (the constitutional meaning of the undefined term "natural born citizen") that is unlike a chemistry experiment. If you find yourself arriving at any kind of conclusion of which you feel certain, then you will know that either you don't fully appreciate the complexity of the problem or you need to think about it some more.
I am exploring the various tendrils of the issue constantly. I feel as if I acquired another piece of insight the other day when I responded to criticism of Vattel's SWISS citizenship. Being passing familiar with Swiss history, I suddenly realized that they preceded us in throwing off a Monarchy and becoming a Republic.
It then further dawned on me, what more fertile ground for the philosophy of natural law than Switzerland? Of COURSE Vattel would be Swiss. In no other nation would the fundamental principles of Republican government exist at that time. Everything else was a Monarchy.
That some people believed we followed English Common law is not in doubt. It is further not in doubt that some people believed we did not. The only people of consequence are the founders, delegates, and ratifiers themselves. It is what THEY thought which determines the meaning of the law.
Subsequent lawyers and courts have been mostly misled after Wonk Kim Ark because they interpreted the ruling too expansively. George Will makes a very good argument that it was never intended to encompass "anchor babies" or "birth tourism."
My theory of what is the truth is still a work in progress. I'm always looking for more data.