That dubious distinction is your stock in trade.
It really amazes me, so many people claiming to value the Constitution. And they come on here and argue against Founding Fathers like James Madison, the Father of the Constitution.
Again you misstate. No one is arguing against Madison. What is being argued is that you are misrepresenting him, and overemphasizing his statement in support of your theory.
They ignore and revile the close associate of Benjamin Franklin and George Washington.
You mean Rawle, whom you apparently didn't realize was a British Loyalist during the War, and who received his legal training in London. This is not revilement, it is merely stating the facts accurately. Also, the fact that he associated with Washington and Franklin does not establish that he was of the same mind as they on this topic.
But now that you brought it up, I am beginning to suspect that Rawle may be Patient Zero in this whole twisted mess. I suspect many of the subsequent legal authorities were the victim of his British Law interpretation of American citizenship. The error in his manuscript very likely influenced countless subsequent legal authorities in their own understanding.
They try to make the Constitution say something that no court case has ever said it meant in the entire history of the United States.
And this is just wrong. Justice Marshall clearly stated the principle in "The Venus", and Justice Waite clearly stated the exact same principle in "Minor v Happersett." You just don't like these cases, so you refuse to acknowledge them.
And those of us who've actually read the Constitution, and read the court cases, and read the debates of the Constitutional Convention, and read the historical quotes, and who are representing them 100% ACCURATELY... well, we're "dipsh!t trolls."
Those of you who read it with a lazy eye.
Yes, dipsh!t pretty much sums it up.