Yet, Jefferson's "wall of separation" opinion has been elevated to constitutional status.
I'm saying they should either all be elevated to constitutional status or none of them should."
I think Jefferson's "wall of separation" has been misunderstood and/or misused to justify court rulings which would otherwise make no sense.
Clearly, both Jefferson and the 1st Amendment refer to an official state religion, such as some states then had, and some countries today still have.
Neither Jefferson nor the 1st Amendment required the abolition of all references to religion in public discourse.
Nor, imho, would they necessarily prohibit public vouchers for children attending legitimate schools run by religious organizations.
Yes, we can discuss the meaning of "legitimate", but basically, it's intended to identify otherwise illegal or immoral activities masquerading as "religion".
Jefferson's "wall of separation" refers to his own 1786 Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom which abolished Virginia's own state religion, so Jefferson's opinions on the matter are quite important.
However, they've been abused and misused and should be returned to a more balanced understanding.
Thomas Paine's opinions are a different matter because Paine was, after all, not a public official of any kind, he was always just a private citizen expressing his own opinions on important matters.
We might even call Paine a "propagandist", except that I don't think his opinions always comported well with those of the "powers that be".
So, his views on "natural born citizens" are quite interesting, but I'd not say they are necessarily definitive of our Founders' understandings.
Perhaps there are other places where such matters are explained more authoritatively?
Which brings us to Madison, often called the "Father of the Constitution", whose understandings were relied on by none other than George Washington to express what Washington himself believed.
Madison was not just some random guy on the street, spouting off about whatever irked him, rather he was at the core of what the Constitution says, and what it means by those words.
So Madison's ideas are important, in all respects, but in Constitutional matters especially.
And on the question of secession, I have never seen where any Founder ever directly contradicted Madison.
Rather, it seems to me that they all took Madison's views as given, as assumed, as not needing further explanation.
Well, some might claim that Jefferson said things opposed to Madison's views, but I would argue that all such opinions fit nicely within Madison's framework of secession authorized by 1) mutual consent or 2) "necessity" from abuses, usurpations, injury, oppression, etc.
There is even an anti-"scission" quote by Jefferson which decries a hypothetical situation exactly matching what happened in 1860.
And it seems to me these should be the final words on the subject, but of course, our pro-Confederates, Lost Causers and other Friends of Secession won't let it end, regardless of Founders' Original Intent.