None of whom as far as I'm aware, EXCEPT for Ramsay (who was voted down 36 to 1 by a group that included 6 Framers of the Constitution), EVER stated that it took birth on US soil plus US citizen parents to make a natural born citizen.
EVER.
Franklin and Washington hung out with William Rawle, who absolutely contradicts you. Washington tried to make him Attorney General of the United States.
Madison says there are two criteria for the kind of allegiance that produces citizenship, but in general, place of birth is "the most certain" and is "WHAT APPLIES IN THE UNITED STATES."
He also led the b****-slap of Ramsay's citizenship claims.
Monroe, as far as anybody can tell, had nothing to say on the matter, except that James McClure was a United States citizen, and the reason his administration gave for that was that he was born in Charleston, South Carolina.
NOT that he was born in Charleston, South Carolina of a US citizen parent. But simply that he was born in South Carolina, once again flatly contradicting your BS claim.
Hamilton told us that when we wanted to understand the terms that were written in the Constitution (such as "natural born,") we should look to the English common law. And by the common law, any child born in the country was "natural born," as long as his parents were in the country legally, whether his parents were aliens or not.
John Jay said nothing except that the command-in-chief should not be given to anyone except a natural BORN citizen, emphasizing BORN.
Sorry, but you're full of crap, and you've been called on it.
St. George Tucker in one of the appendices in his version of the Blackstone Commentaries, explains his opinion on the role of the English Common law for the United States under the Constitution and whether it is part of Federal Law [he says it isn’t].
“A question has lately been agitated, whether the common, or, unwritten law of England, has been adopted in America, by the establishment of the constitution of the United States; or, in other words, how far the laws of England, both civil and criminal, make a part of the law of the American States, in their united and national capacity.”
“Judge Ellsworth is reported, on a late occasion, to have laid it down as a general rule, that the common law of England is the unwritten law of the United States, in their national or federal capacity.[1] Judge Washington, also, is said to have delivered a similar opinion, upon another occasion. The like opinion has been advanced on the floor of the federal house of representatives .... concurrent opinions from such respectable authority deserve to be candidly, and respectfully examined, where any doubt is entertained of their correctness; and where any such doubt is entertained, they ought to receive an early and full discussion; otherwise they will soon acquire the force of precedents. These are often more difficult to be shaken than the most cogent arguments, when drawn from reason alone.”
Tucker goes on to examine the question, he says that the Common Law was not made part of US law. But in the Postscript, he discusses the case of the United States v. Worrel where Justice Chase says the Common Law is not part of the Federal Law but Justice Peters says that it is and he returns to the ruling of Chief Justice Ellsworth in the Isaac Williams case.
“Here then are two opposite opinions on this great question. On the trial of Isaac Williams, in the district court of Connecticut, February 37, 1797 ...when Judge Ellsworth, then chief justice of the United States, is said to have delivered an opinion nearly to the following effect.”
“The common law of this country remains the same as it was before the revolution. ...”
“As the learned judge in this opinion, refers to no express prohibitory law, except the common law, (by which I presume was meant the common law of England) we must understand his opinion, as founded upon the doctrine that the common law of England is the common law of the United States, in their federal, and national capacity and character. How far reason is on the side of that opinion, the student may form some judgement from what has been said in the foregoing essay.”
http://www.constitution.org/tb/t1e.htm
The case of Isaac Williams was about expatriation, which was also a hotly debated issue in the early years of the Republic.
BTW, Oliver Ellsworth was a delegate to the Constitutional Convention, he was a member of the Committee of Five that drafted the first version of the Constitution but he left the Convention [for personal reasons] before the final draft was presented for signature. He wrote several articles in support of the Constitution during the ratification period.
http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/biographies/oliver-ellsworth/
So pick your Founder and have at it as it doesn’t appear that they could agree either.
P.S.
More from Tucker:
“We may fairly infer from all that has been said that the common law of England stands precisely upon the same footing in the federal government, and courts of the United States, as such, as the civil and ecclesiastical laws stand upon in England: That is to say, it’s maxims and rules of proceeding are to be adhered to, whenever the written law is silent, in cases of a similar, or analogous nature, the cognizance whereof is by the constitution vested in the federal courts; it may govern and direct the course of proceeding, in such cases, but cannot give jurisdiction in any case, where jurisdiction is not expressly given by the constitution. The same may be said of the civil law; the rules of proceeding in which, whenever the written law is silent, are to be observed in cases of equity, and of admiralty, and maritime jurisdiction. In short, as the matters cognizable in the federal courts, belong, (as we have before shewn, in reviewing the powers of the judiciary department) partly to the law of nations, partly to the common law of England; partly to the civil law; partly to the maritime law, comprehending the laws of Oleron and Rhodes; and partly to the general law and custom of merchants; and partly to the municipal laws of any foreign nation, or of any state in the union, where the cause of action may happen to arise, or where the suit may be instituted; so, the law of nations, the common law of England, the civil law, the law maritime, the law merchant, or the lex loci, or law of the foreign nation, or state, in which the cause of action may arise, or shall be decided, must in their turn be resorted to as the rule of decision, according to the nature and circumstances of each case, respectively. So that each of these laws may be regarded, so far as they apply to such cases, respectively, as the law of the land. But to infer from hence, that the common law of England is the general law of the United States, is to the full as absurd as to suppose that the laws of Russia, or Germany, are the general law of the land, because in a controversy respecting a contract made in either of those empires, it might be necessary to refer to the laws of either of them, to decide the question between the litigant parties. Nor can I find any more reason for admitting the penal code of England to be in force in the United States, (except so far as the states, respectively, may have adopted it, within their several jurisdictions) than for admitting that of the Roman empire, or of Russia, Spain, or any other nation, whatever.”
And you're back to your "NUMBERS = TRUTH!" argument. He was most likely voted down because the house perceived him as a sore loser, and didn't really care about his technicality argument.
Franklin and Washington hung out with William Rawle, who absolutely contradicts you. Washington tried to make him Attorney General of the United States.
GOD! You are SO F***ING STUPID! You are an ignorant, childish wannabe relevant fool, who has not the slightest understanding of logic or reality. You keep putting forth these IDIOT arguments such as "Rawle hung out with these guys, so obviously he knows ever secret of their innermost being." You then add to this brain dead stupidity, the comment that "Washington tried to make him Attorney General" as if that is proof that he has specific knowledge of the Delegates intent, rather than being just a general acknowledgement of his capabilities. I'm not even going to bother looking at the rest of your crap. Two fallacies in a row is enough idiocy for me to deal with this morning.
Your arguments pretty much consist of these fallacies.
"I have a WHOLE FLOCK of Lawyer Lawbirds" who agree with me, and because there are so MANY of them, they must be correct!"
"The Leader of the Flock (William Rawle) MUST be correct, because the Shadow of Washington and Franklin once fell across him!"
Again, you are just too stupid for me to put up with this morning.