X = natural born; Early American legal scholars tell us so,
Several Attorneys general tell us so, Rogers v. Bellei
affirms that in this, the Constitution follows English
common law.
Y = By statute, this was made equivalent to natural born.
This is what you call a response? Seriously, I expected something better. As for what Attorneys say, I don't give a D@mn. As for what Early American legal scholars say, you've only got one on your side of which I know; Rawles. I think you also try to claim St. George Tucker, but I think my side quotes him a lot too. Just to counteract those 1-1/2, we've got Dr. David Ramsey and Chief Supreme court justice Marshall for Rebuttal. Roger v Bellei tells us that someone born as an American citizen can lose their citizenship unless they are a natural born citizen which cannot. It demonstrates that one can be a "born" citizen without being an article II "natural born citizen."
As for what Early American legal scholars say, you've only got one on your side of which I know; Rawles. I think you also try to claim St. George Tucker, but I think my side quotes him a lot too.
William Rawle, St George Tucker, James Kent
As for David Ramsey, have you bothered to read his "A Dissertation on Manner of Acquiring the Character and Privileges of a Citizen of the United States? If you are just relying on a few clipped quotes, I urge you to follow the link and actually read it. His dissertation deals with whether those colonists who were deceased at the time of the Declaration of Independence could pass on American citizenship to their (nonresident) children or their minor children. (His conclusion was no - the children must "acquire that privilege in their own right." If you are relying on Ramsay to make your case, you have a very weak reed, since he is dealing with those alive at the time of his writing. Good try.
As for Justice John Marshall, do you mean this statement?
“A naturalized citizen is indeed made a citizen under an act of Congress, but the act does not proceed to give, to regulate, or to prescribe his capacities. He becomes a member of the society, possessing all the rights of a native citizen, and standing, in the view of the constitution, on the footing of a native. The constitution does not authorize Congress to enlarge or abridge those rights. The simple power of the national Legislature, is to prescribe a uniform rule of naturalization, and the exercise of this power exhausts it, so far as respects the individual. The constitution then takes him up, and, among other rights, extends to him the capacity of suing in the Courts of the United States, precisely under the same circumstances under which a native might sue. He is distinguishable in nothing from a native citizen, except so far as the constitution makes the distinction. The law makes none.” [OSBORN V. BANK OF THE UNITED STATES]So Marshall clearly says a "native" citizen is distinguished only from naturalized by the Constitutional distinction. The only Constitutional distinction I'm aware of is the eligibility to run for president.