You mean the persons who in drafting and debating the Constitution selected a term ("natural born citizen") that came loaded with common law association? The ones you think adopted a contrary meaning but didn't bother to tell anyone that's what they were doing?
Those people? There were lots of people there in 1787, just none adopting this "super secret new meaning " to "natural born." Those exist only in your mind.
This is one reason why I insist you cannot get an accurate understanding of the issue by quoting people who were nearly a century later.
But when those later persons are saying the same things as other prominent legal writers stretching back to 1795, it's a strained argument that says all of them were off the mark. "Natural born citizen" was so obviously derived from the common law "natural born subject" and had prior interchangeable usage that it's fatuous to suggest the Framers intended that association NOT to be made.
Recall the words of Justice Scalia in the Heller case:
"In interpreting this text, we are guided by the principle that “[t]he Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning.” United States v. Sprague, 282 U. S. 716, 731(1931); see also Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 188 (1824)."
For most anyone reading the Constitution, both common citizens and delegates to the state ratifying conventions, "natural born citizen" was no doubt understood by reference to the language they knew - and that was the common law. This view that there was this secret group of French-speaking conventioneers or persons having a copy of Vattel who adopted this other meaning (but just didn't tell anyone) is stupid. It's a forced read on history.
The very people who know the CORRECT answer are ignored,
The better reasoned view is that these "people" are ignored because they didn't speaking clearly on the issue of the U.S. citizenship rule.
I bet you have absolutely no idea why this is so, and just assume that the opposing view is so inconsequential that none of them were aware of it.
I have a very good idea why this is so. Those authorities (Kent, Rawle, Sandford (Lynch v. Clarke), etc.) speak so early and so consistently to that view that in purporting to state the "existing law" it's impossible to ignore them, especially in the absence of any clear authority to the contrary. And that these authorities should speak so consistently is no surprise given that term chosen by the Frames ("natural born citizen") is so obviously derived from it's common law counterpart that it's impossible to think a different understanding could have been intended.
You have some theory as to Congress, but what about Chief Justice Fuller in WKA? Here's the Chief Justice of the SCOTUS trying to urge the point that Vattel should be taken as the original birth-citizenship rule. He's taking the same position you are! YET, none of these supposed "authorities with provenance" you brandish about are claimed by him in support. Now why is that?
The obvious answer (to any rational person looking at this with any hint of objectivity) is that these sources simply don't say what you claim they say. If they did, it's inexplicable that Fuller didn't cite to them.
If "Birth on the Soil" is all that is necessary to impart US Citizenship to any child, then pray tell, why were they creating a piece of legislation to accomplish this thing which supposedly existing law already did?
Seriously? You think this is a "real" question with an unclear answer? The depths of your ineptitude on history continue to amaze.
Well, DumbDumb, they were first creating a piece of legislation (the C.R.A.) because it was pretty obvious to everyone (excepting you, it seems) that the citizenship laws worked one way as to whites, and another way as to blacks (and Asians). So a white person born of alien parents (e.g, Julia Lynch) got treated as a citizen at birth while the likes of Dredd Scott (and perhaps this other mystery person you bring up when talking about Rawle) got a different result. And the very stated purpose of the legislation is to make the "white person rule" applicable to everyone else.
And then to make sure that southern legislators and judges didn't start getting creative and watering this down, they elevated that legislation to Constitutional status.
You really need this spoon-fed to you this way? Sheesh, you're dumb.
Slight correction above: “to make sure southern legislators and judges didn’t water this down” should be “to make sure a subsequent Congress didn’t change or repeal the Act” . . .