Yes. Millions of excluded citizens in the form of Slaves, Indians, and the Children of British Loyalists are insufficient for you to grasp the point.
And of course the explicitly written document I posted earlier in the thread wasn't enough either.
The word "Dense" comes to mind.
I could tell you what Chief Justice John Marshall said on the subject, but i'm pretty sure that wouldn't make a dent in your head either.
I could tell you what Justice Bushrod Washington said, I could tell you what Benjamin Franklin said, I could tell you what James Wilson said, I could tell you what James Monroe said, I could show you what James Madison did, and on and on and on and on, and I doubt any of it would make a dent in your preferred belief.
Again, I don't perceive you as having the intellectual heft necessary to discuss this topic.
Indians not taxed is specifically mentioned in the Constitution, slaves were not specifically ruled non-citizens until Dred Scott, and the children of British Loyalists who were citizens at the time the Constitution was adopted were, in fact, natural-born citizens. Try again.
The word "Dense" comes to mind.
I would have described you as "pig-headed" but "dense" will do.
I could tell you what Chief Justice John Marshall said on the subject, but i'm pretty sure that wouldn't make a dent in your head either.
I could tell you what Justice Bushrod Washington said, I could tell you what Benjamin Franklin said, I could tell you what James Wilson said, I could tell you what James Monroe said, I could show you what James Madison did, and on and on and on and on, and I doubt any of it would make a dent in your preferred belief.
But what you can't do is point to where they accepted your definition of natural-born citizen alone.