Second, it is irrelevant. What the law is today is what matters, not a historical argument rendered moot by the passage of time and changes in law.
Yes, they do. Quite a lot in fact.
I thought I explained it clearly, but apparently I didn't.
William Rawle was the man who wrote a book that caused the most damage to American's understanding of the meaning "natural born citizen."
He was an English lawyer that came to Philadelphia after the Revolutionary war to practice law. He became president of the abolition society of Pennsylvania, and at the time, other states were having success abolishing slavery through court decisions declaring slaves "free."
He set about to replicate this in Pennsylvania courts. A case he took on was Negress Flora vs. Joseph Grainsberry. (Not sure I spelled that right) He lost. It went to the Pennsylvania Supreme court and he lost unanimously.
He put forth his claim that because English common law declared anyone born on the soil to be a "citizen", slaves could not be slaves, because they were "citizens."
The Pennsylvania Supreme court rejected this argument.
Rawle kept pushing his false claims and eventually wrote a book that became quite influential in early American jurisprudence, and that book contained Rawles false claims about citizenship.
It became so widespread, that the truth of what the framers intended with "natural born citizen" has been lost. It has been covered up with the muck of what Rawle did.
And it was all about slaves.
So was the 14th amendment. People nowadays try to tell you that the 14th amendment *CHANGED* the meaning of Presidential eligibility, but this is incorrect. All it did was grant slaves citizenship.
Second, it is irrelevant. What the law is today is what matters, not a historical argument rendered moot by the passage of time and changes in law.
You cannot amend the US Constitution by passing laws. That's not how it works. You have to pass amendments.