"It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.
What? You found the only tool in your bag is a hammer and all your problems must therefore be nails? Your argument as been refuted, yet here you are persistent in it. Were Madison's comment the law of the land it would have made citizens of Slaves and Indians, yet we know for a fact they were not until they were manumitted and/or naturalized.
You simply don't seem to comprehend that the facts contradict the only quote (and that offhand) you have in support of your position. The seating of Mr. Smith to the US congress not only did not repeal article II, it did not even address it.
By your logic, the fact that women were not made citizens invalidates “chosen every second Year by the People of the several States,” since women were part of the people and yet could not vote.
You have also set up a strawman - I never claimed “law of the land” as there was no clear law on the books at that time on “natural born” - rather it was a continuation of English Common Law, on which much US law is based. Posters were discussing insight into the Founders’ idea of Natural Born. I provided James Madison’s clearly stated opinions on Jus Soli and Jus Sanguinus.
You don’t want to accept it? Fine, you can believe that a preexisting book by the Swiss De Vattel is more important than clear statements by the Father of the US Constitution.