Now you are starting to sound like Kansas58. I would be very worried were I you.
The notion that there are ONLY two categories is simply an artificial construct of those people who WANT there to be only two categories. It has no basis in reality.
Also, the notion that no Judge agrees with you is not evidence that you are wrong. Were it in fact true, it would merely mean that "you" and the Judges have a difference of Opinion. It doesn't mean that the judge is correct and you are wrong. Again, Roe v Wade, Kelo v New London, Lawrence v Texas, Wickard v Fillburn, etc. are All examples of where the judges were absolutely wrong.
You seemingly ought to know better than to attempt simplistic assertions as a substitute for actual logic. At least Winston tries to claim Rawle KNEW the founders, and therefore had some sort of clue what they meant. To say "A bunch of Judges says so, therefore it's true" is pathetic by comparison. (Unless, of course, you are referring to particular judges that may have been convention delegates or otherwise personally knew what the framers had in mind.)
What can I tell you? In rulings and concurrences both Justices Scalia and Thomas have cited previous Supreme Court rulings stating that there are only two classes of citizenship. (See Miller v Albright, 523 U.S. 420, 1998)
Without Scalia and Thomas there aren’t four votes under The Rule of Four to grant Certiorari to an Obama eligibility challenge and there aren’t five votes to prevail on a holding.
I’m sure that you are aware that those two guys are real sticklers for “stare decisis.”
For example:
“This [the citizenship clause] section of the fourteenth amendment contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only, birth and naturalization. The persons declared to be citizens are ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’ The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards, except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts, or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired.”—U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898).
Might the Supreme Court establish a new precedent? They might. Have they established a new precedent in the twenty Obama eligibility appeals that have reached them in conference thus far? Nope.