“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.
You are citing a case argued for citizenship which did not rise tot he level of natural born citizen. But that is typical, to play bait and switch. Have a nice weekend ...