Perhaps you need to read Rogers v Bellei more carefully? Bellei was a "jus sanguinus" citizen, which equals citizen by statute (naturalization act of 1952). This means his citizenship could be subject to laws passed by Congress. He was not a jus soli (natural born) citizen, which can't be affected by such laws. Rogers v Bellei explicitly affirms that the US follows English common law in jus soli.
Also I am continuously puzzled by those who keep saying "let us see what SCOTUS said!" as opposed to "Let us read what the FOUNDERS said." The former argument implies that there are those of you who do not know what to think unless a third party tells you what your opinion should be.
All you are doing is changing which third party you think is controlling. The reason many look at what SCOTUS said is because the Constitution says
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States...SCOTUS gets to interpret the Constitution. What SCOTUS says is the law of the land, whether we like it or not.
I do not see how you can interpret it that way, but I would rather discuss a different point.
All you are doing is changing which third party you think is controlling. The reason many look at what SCOTUS said is because the Constitution says
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States...
The legal authority of the Judges is derivative from that of the lawmakers. If the lawmakers PASS a law, and it is not unconstitutional, then the Judges are obligated to enforce it as the LAWMAKERS have decided, not the other way around. It is not *I* who is confused at which is the controlling authority. The Judges are merely the guards of enforcement, not the creators of new law. (At least not the way the system was SUPPOSED to work. The system is currently dysfunctional.)
When it is clearly obvious that the judges are not complying with the intentions of the Lawmakers, it is the judges who are in the wrong, not the lawmakers.
SCOTUS gets to interpret the Constitution. What SCOTUS says is the law of the land, whether we like it or not.
What SCOTUS says is the DOCTRINE which gets enforced. It may or may NOT be the "law of the Land" because SCOTUS has been known to make Sh*t up as they go along. Roe v Wade is a prime example, and so is Kelo v New London.
It is a matter of rock solid belief among conservatives that the Supreme Court doesn't actually enforce the law, they apply whatever political doctrine happens to be in the ascendency in the majority of justices at the time.
If you have a majority of Liberal Justices, you are going to get a bunch of Liberal bullsh*t decisions. If you have a majority of Conservative Justices (not since the 1930s.) you will get sane decisions. What is actually the law has not a d@mn thing to do with what SCOTUS will decide. Do you think for a minute that Kagan or Soetomanure would not vote against the second amendment?