No, a ratifier is not a writer or a contributor in the sense of original thinking.
So...by your same reasoning then Thomas Jefferson and John Adams shouldn't count either, because they were in Europe as foreign ministers during the constitutional convention. Nor were John Hancock, Patrick Henry, or Samuel Adams, seeing as they only took part in the ratification stage as well.
You are playing pick-and-choose with your founding fathers. It's a very strange world where an Alexander Hamilton (who blathered about monarchy at the convention, but lost almost every single vote and got ignored by the rest of the delegates) "counts" as a founder and Rufus King (a comparatively minor figure) also "counts," but John Marshall (a judicial heavyweight who people actually did listen to) does not. In fact the only criterion I can even discern is their perceived convenience to your argument. Marshall is inconvenient to your point (and I'm still not convinced you even know what your point is beyond regurgitating a muddled concept of natural law for its own sake interspersed with increasingly obvious name-dropping), so you dismiss him.
Your selective editing, your “Bartonian ellipse,” as it were, has resulted in a grave, and what appears to be an intentional distortion of my working definition of “Founder.” I therefore reiterate my earlier post:
“No, a ratifier is not a writer or a contributor in the sense of original thinking. However, I understand that defining the scope of who the Founders really were is a debated issue. I really limit it to those who made the most notable contributions to the creation of the original documents, not to its broader acceptance in the states. Again, as a matter of best evidence, authors should take precedence over voting delegates, and the precedent tributaries of thought such as Locke and others, should be considered important and even dispositive if the authors so regarded them.”
Under that definition, the “selectivity” to which you object is simply a natural outcome of the purpose, which is to show what influenced the substantive content of the founding documents. Therefore, while I have already granted in the above statement that broader definitions of “Founder” could theoretically include anyone from the period, no matter how attenuated their role, I will still contend that Marshall was not a player as to formation of the substantive content of the founding documents, and you have not refuted that. If you would prefer another term for the subclass of Founder I am referencing, perhaps “Framer” would be closer to the goal, but it is not quite perfect, because I do not wish to exclude those who contributed to the Framers’ thoughts, given their power to explain the origin of the Framers’ content.
Furthermore, because the Declaration stands in an organic relationship to the Constitution, Jefferson, as the author of the Declaration, is most certainly a Founder under the foregoing definition. And Jefferson, in agreement with Hamilton, Blackstone, Locke, et al, would not countenance a vision of legitimate government that allowed at any level for genocide:
“strict observance of the written law is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to the written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means.”
~Thomas Jefferson, Letter to J.B. Colvin (Sept. 20, 1810)
And here, Jefferson, whom both of us must regard as a top tier Founder using any reasonable definition, makes my central point, that the Constitution, as a body of positive law, only serves as a means to an end, that end being the preservation of “life, liberty, property,” the core individual rights, grounded in natural law, without which one loses both law and country. Can you see how that might exclude genocide?