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.
You think that because you think Jeff is making the case for a certain standard. He's not. He's just arguing the historical facts of what the standard is. It's like he's explaining why Germany invaded Russia, and you're demanding that he make the argument for why that was a good idea. It's not the same frame of reference.
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.
This is simply not true.
When I lay out a clear and logical analysis, as I've done with US v Wong Kim Ark, birthers here (probably including yourself) accuse me of not having quoted authorities saying explicitly that the children of aliens are eligible.
When I provide direct quotes from the best legal authorities of how they defined "natural born citizen," including quotes such as the one from Rawle which explicitly says the children born on US soil of alien parents are natural born citizens, birthers then say I "haven't made an argument."
It really doesn't matter whether I present analysis or quotes. Whatever form of good evidence one presents, birthers such as yourself will demand the other.
As for winning debates and getting somewhere in a court of law, at least roughly half a dozen courts of law have ruled DIRECTLY AGAINST your claims, noting that the children born on US soil, even of aliens, are NATURAL BORN CITIZENS.
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...
This is the fundamental point at which you and other birthers have gone completely wrong.
It is to frame the question in those terms.
The question is NOT, "What would you do?"
The question is not even, "What 'would' the Founders and Framers 'have done'?"
The question is: "What DID the Founders and Framers DO?"
And the only way that can be answered is NOT to start with a theory. It is to start with history and law, and discern the theory behind their history and law once you've determined what they themselves did.
If you ask the WRONG question, then you come up with your OWN theory of natural born citizenship.
If you're lucky, then that theory matches the theory that our Founders and Framers were working with. If you're unlucky, then you end up producing a competing theory that is NOT the theory they were working with.
In that instance, you produce a competing theory to theirs. And you end up trying to push YOUR theory, not THEIR theory, and your imagined version of history, not the real one.
And that is exactly what birthers have done.