It hits all of the same tired beats that have been ongoing since 2008 at least: citing Vattel's book on *international law*, the Federalist Papers, John Jay's letter to Washington...
Beyond contemporary references to current political events, the argument is quite literally nothing new.
You forgot the most important one. The founders dropping the "natural born subject" and replacing it with "natural born citizen" which was an uncommonly used word in the English language of that era.
In 1770s English "citizen" meant "dweller in a city." It did *NOT* mean "member of a nation", except in Switzerland, where it meant exactly that.
The fact the founders changed it from the far more common and understood term "subject" to the far less common "citizen" show their intent that our system was modeled after the Swiss Republic, where the word had always been used in that manner since the 14th century.
Also, i've posted that lawbook from Pennsylvania which flat out says our "citizenship" comes from Vattel, and the people most likely to know what was intended by the Convention (held in Philadelphia in 1787) was the Philadelphia legal community, which is exactly where that book came from.
Regardless of whether or not there is quite literally nothing new, it points to original intent interpretation of the Constitution. Of course, if that is out of fashion as way back as 2008 it should have been adjudicated as such and not just proclaimed (like ‘No 2020 Election Fraud’ was never adjudicated ).
At any rate the article’s arguments are almost indisputable without bias/illogic or just plain failure to get a grip. MOST telling is “ Why is nbC in the Constitution ?”
-fJRoberts