I will say my legal argument is going to derive from William Lewis of Pennsylvania. He was a member of the Pennsylvania legislature when the US Constitution was ratified by Pennsylvania, and he ought to have known what was meant by "natural born citizen" in the context of the Framer's intent.
Whatever secret and unshared thoughts or opinions William Lewis may have had, they were not ratified as a part of the Constitution or United States law. When you progress from what your argument is going to be, all the way to what your argument is, get back to me.
Congressional Research Service,
Citizenship is membership in a political society, and implies a duty of allegiance on the part of the member and a duty of protection on the part of society. These are reciprocal obligations, one being a compensation for the other. Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency.The Supreme Court in 1929, in United States v. Schwimmer, had stated in a similar manner that "Except for eligibility to the Presidency, naturalized citizens stand on the same footing as do native born citizens," and noted again in 1931 that, "The alien, when he becomes a naturalized citizen, acquires, with one exception, every right possessed under the Constitution by those citizens who are native born."
Although a small faction of advocates now apparently attempt to cast doubt as to whether every so-called "native" born U.S. citizen (having been born within the borders of this country) is a "natural born" citizen under the Constitution, all doubt in the judicial arena has been resolved for more than a century in favor of "natural born" status of such individuals who are citizens "by birth" or "at birth." As discussed in more detail in the following section of this report, there have been some legitimate legal arguments and varying opinions about the status of foreign born children of U.S. citizens as being either "natural born" citizens under common law principles, or citizens who are, arguably, "naturalized" or made U.S. citizens by statute. There appears, however, to be no legitimate legal issue outstanding concerning the eligibility of all citizens of the United States who are born in the country to be President. The case law in the United States, as well as the clear historical record, does not support the argument or contention that there is some further or additional "subcategory" of "citizen" of the United States who, although born in the country and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, is neither a "natural born" citizen nor a "naturalized" citizen. Rather, as the cases discussed above demonstrate, the categories uniformly recognized and referred to in case law in the United States as "citizens" of the United States are "natural born" citizens, that is, those who are citizens "at birth," as opposed to "naturalized" citizens, that is, those who are aliens at birth and must go through naturalization to become citizens.
That is an assumption, and without proof. Firstly, his thoughts may not be secret, they may just be unknown to us, or more specifically you. Secondly, they may have been shared by all members of the Pennsylvania legislature (which is a good bet) and they may very well have been ratified as part of the US Constitution.
Congressional Research Service,
I don't care what the Congressional Research Service says. Error built on top of error is unlikely to yield any accurate result.
Unless it emanates from primary sources, it is just a repeated opinion.
Rawle taught a lot of people incorrectly about US Citizenship, and the damage is widespread. Everything tainted by his influence is simply wrong.