FOR THE THIRD TIME......cite the specific authority on which Rawle relied his personal opinion as to what a “natural born Citizen” is.
Let me ask you something here.
I've given you a very detailed and reasonable answer here.
Still, you DEMAND that I cite a specific authority on which Rawle relied.
Let me ask you this: Who are you relying on as an authority to tell you what a natural born citizen is? And why is Rawle "not good enough for you?"
Is it David Ramsay?
Is it Samuel Roberts?
Is it Vattel? (Who had nothing to do with America at all?)
Those are the only early authorities I can even think of that try to make anything like your case.
If it's David Ramsay, then why are you relying on someone who was shot down 36 to 1?
And please CITE THE SPECIFIC AUTHORITY ON WHICH DAVID RAMSAY WAS RELYING.
If it's Samuel Roberts, they why are you relying on someone who was only responsible for several counties in Pennsylvania?
And CITE THE SPECIFIC AUTHORITY SAMUEL ROBERTS WAS RELYING ON.
If it's Vattel, then explain why he's even relevant, when no one even refers to him.
And CITE THE SPECIFIC AUTHORITY VATTEL WAS RELYING ON.
The fact is, you really, really, REALLY want to believe a particular theory.
You're not approaching the matter in any reasonably unbiased way.
If you were, you wouldn't keep demanding of one side of the argument that which you won't demand of the other.