As even the most rudimentary legal scholar understands, if a passage is unclear, then one must look to things such as committee hearings, existing case law, and yes, the dictionary in order to determine what the law means. In the case of the Constitution, one looks to the Federalist Papers or some other contemporaneous writing. There is nothing in the volumes of such work that indicates the Founders meant to conflate the meanings of the word "citizen" with the words "person," or "people." As I mentioned earlier, the text of the Constitution itself indicates that the Founders knew of the distinction between the terms, and meant to keep it. One is perfectly entitled to argue that the Constitution only applies to citizens, as long as one understands that, essentially, one is arguing that the Founders were specific in one regard but unspecific the other. In other words, they didn't know what the heck they were doing.
I don't mind pointing it out to catcalls from the peanut gallery . . . but one thing I did not address was the essential absurdity of the position: as if the Founders (even setting aside the issue of slavery, a debate that is well-documented), undertook from the start to create a document that was so limited in scope that it could not even address the notion that a post-Revolutionary American colonial might share the same rights as the British subject living next door. And again, assuming the argument is correct (that the Constitution only applies to citizens), one should wonder why none (or mostly none--this I have not researched) of the Founders envisioned three legal/court systems instead of two: Federal, State, and "whatever it is I want to call the one that adjudicates the rights of non-citizens."
I believe you are correct...
But I like what the document means to me from an asthetic sense, and that even though I am knowledgable in its literal meaning (technicalities and interpretations of terms used in it), the way I read the document early on increased my appreciation for the effort to help portions of it flow, make it easy to read...
My technical interest increased with understanding the context (environment) in which it was written, followed by learning about those who contributed to its creation, and knowing that no matter how long it remains one of the most important founding documents of our country, it shouldn't be relegated to secondary status by some who believe it should be interpreted loosely just because "times have changed"...