BTW, Commerce and the 14th have been utilized way out of proportion.
In what respect? The Constitution means what it did at the point of ratification; else it means nothing. If the record exists coincident with ratification confirming its original intent, that should be a legally compelling interpretation. In this case we have multiple sources describing that original intent.
The only pure precedent that exists giving children of even legal foreign subjects natural law citizenship started with Bridges v. Wixon in 1945.
"Legal precedent is extra-Constitutional. Are we to do an end run around the Constitution?"
Not according to the Founders' intent.
Voir: Federalist #78.