No. It was very well defined at the time of the Constitution.
Clearing the Smoke on Obama’s Eligibility: An Intelligence Investigator’s June 10 Report
William Blackstone, Commentaries 1:354, 357–58, 361–62 Year 1765
“Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the ligeance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it.. . .
To encourage also foreign commerce, it was enacted by statute 25 Edw. III. st. 2. that all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at the time of the birth in allegiance to the king,…might inherit as if born in England:
No, it is still vaguely defined because the two-parents rule used in this statement was no longer current even in the days of George III. A child of an Englishman abroad was a subject of HM the King, no matter who was his mother.
Besides which there is no case law here vis the constitutional test. You could make this argument but I doubt a court would agree with your application of original intent.