Additionally, going back to the established means in effect in the Founders’ day, a person received their name and rights through their father. But you want to ignore that, apparently. It does however aid in understanding why a natural born must have a United States citizen father, to avoid exactly what Obama has admitted to, citizenship under the Crown at birth thus subject to/of the crown.
“Additionally, going back to the established means in effect in the Founders’ day, a person received their name and rights through their father”
Be that as it may, it’s not in the Constitution.
“It does however aid in understanding why a natural born must have a United States citizen father, to avoid exactly what Obama has admitted to, citizenship under the Crown at birth thus subject to/of the crown.”
SCOTUS disagrees with you. They have consistently held (see: Elg, Wong Ark) that the children of citizens of foreign countries are not exclusively subjects of those countries. You see, the U.S. government doesn’t care if you have the opportunity to claim citizenship somewhere else; they’ll still consider you a citizen if you’re born here.
But in those days things were indeed more patrilineal. They would not have considered the child of an unwed mother fit to be President, while we do not feel so harsh today to an innocent baby. We also have given women full rights of citizenship that they did not enjoy in the Founders' days.
For there to be a new definition to fit today's world, we could never apply only patrilineage to natural born status. We could decide that natural born equals born to TWO American citizens. But we could never decide today that only the FATHER need be an American citizen.
Because these days, you can't be a natural born bastard any more. These days, you have to EARN that status with your behavior.
Which is what the [deprecated] 1790 statute addressed. All of the FFs were British citizens until at least the War of 1812 as far as the Crown was concerned, however, in the words of Ruby Rod: "But who cares?"