The court very thoroughly and explicitly explained its reasoning based on legal history for finding that a person born in the US is a natural born citizen.
"He wrote the 14th Amendment. Bingham spoke of the intent and meaning behind his words. His words are in the U.S. Constitution. The 14th Amendment is law. Capeesh."
He was one person involved in writing a part of the 14th ammendment. He doesn't decide post facto what the ammendment means. Its words decide that, and court interpretations decide that. Speeches he gave later mean nothing at all. The only reason anyone even tries to pass that off is because it seems to say what they want to hear. That's not the way things work.
It's the meaning and intent behind the words that provide laws for what they are. In any case, you haven't even come close to making a convincing argument.
Speeches he gave later mean nothing at all
That quote from Bingham above that you should have noticed was said on March 9, 1866. When was the 14th Amendment first introduced and ratified?
And the methods of interpretation include the legislative history. It's not the primary source, that would be the words, but it may be second, should the words not be clear or sufficient to illuminate a particular situation. Another reference would of course be the common law, whose terms are often used without definition in the Constitution.