@HoustonSam
What you seem to be missing here is that mere citizenship is NOT the same as natural-born citizenship. And the Constitution itself make that distinction in a single sentence "No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, ..."
When I said "scholarly" above
@Bigun I was thinking of you.
So here is my argument :
I'm sure you'll agree with me on the major premise that the Constitution, and legislative acts, should be interpreted according to Original Intent. The words mean what the writers understood the words to mean, and neither courts nor legislatures have the legitimate authority to change the original meaning; only an Amendment can change what is included in original intent.
The minor premise is what I alluded to above - both
jus soli and
jus sanguinis were understood by the writers of the US Constitution to be cases of natural born citizenship. Now this is a question of fact, and I stand to be corrected on it. But my understanding is that English law had considered both of these to be natural born citizenship since the mid-1300s, and the Founders would have been very well aware of that.
So I conclude that both those born on the soil, and those born of the blood, are natural born citizens. In both cases citizenship comes *by birth, at birth*, because (as I understand) that is what the Founders intended, and it doesn't make any difference what any legislative act or judicial opinion said later. That is the Original Intent, its legal force is
constitutional and can be changed only by amendment, and there has been no such amendment.
The short references you provided to case law demonstrate your scholarship. But in addition to the Original Intent argument I make above, that judges and justices are bound by original intent and cannot deviate from it, I also note that those cites reiterate the equation of
jus soli with natural born, but do not negate the equation of
jus sanguinis with natural born. Perhaps those cites demonstrate that their authors recognized a more certain definition for
jus soli, but as Constitutionalists do we not believe that judges and justices do not make the law? If the Founders were within a four-hundred-year-old understanding of English law when they wrote the Constitution, then in the absence of an amendment, what difference does it make what a judge thought afterward?