Here’s a better translation: Ignore every real early authority. Ignore the US Supreme Court. Make your case on the basis of a Congressman who spoke ambiguously, off the cuff, 75 years after the Constitution was written.
Others here, including myself, have done just that. You have not.
You're taking the defensive posture that it's unnecessary for you to make your case, and that simply providing selected citations is sufficient. It's not, Jeff. You'd get nowhere in a court of law using that tactic, and you'll never win any debate that way.
Answer me this:
If you're crafting a new model of government, and are setting forth the qualifications for the various offices, would you not set the qualifications for President at the highest, purest pedigree you could, in order to best ensure their unwavering fealty to the nation?
Further, what pedigree of citizenship would you logically consider most likely to produce the kind of person who would remain unerringly loyal to your people, in that office:
A. A citizen born in a foreign country to parents who were also born there?
B. A citizen born in this country to parents who were born in a foreign land?
C. A citizen born in this country to one parent born here, and the other born elsewhere?
D. A citizen born in this country to parents who were also born here?
Applying simple deductive reasoning, tell me which of those conditions of citizenship is most likely to produce the sort of loyalty one would want in a national Chief Executive.
Again, Ignore any quotes from Jeff, for if he finds one from an Early Authority (several have been given him already) he will either refuse to acknowledge it, or mock the Authority from whence it came.
Jeff has only one purpose in mind; To enshrine a piece of stupidity into American law and culture, and pretend that it was always there.