What you have found is a book written by one of the delegates to the convention in Pennsylvania that ratified the Constitution after it was written. And, at page 26 of his book, in a footnote, this delegate states that, in his view, American laws differ in some particulars from English laws and he further states that, in his view, at least some of those American laws are "more consistent with reason and the laws of nature." In support of his opinion, he quotes from a book ("Law of Nations") that was written by Vattel, a dead Swiss philosopher who could not have known anything about the American Constitution or any word of American law. And, in that footnote, the delegate (Yeates) cites no statute or case, no primary source of any kind to support his opinion. It is just his opinion. Basically, what Yeates is saying in that footnote is that he thought some of the theories of Vattel were preferable to at least some of the rules developed in England.
No, you cannot properly put the words of that footnote (even if those words were relevant) into the mouths of the drafters of our Constitution and into the mouths all of the people who participated in the ratification of that Constitution. It is not even clear from that opinion how Yeates might have interpreted the natural born citizen clause, but even if he had clearly stated an opinion, it would remain nothing more than that - the opinion of one man.
I guess you can see now why you are unable to find any primary source of law to support your position. Yeates could not find anything, either.
I think that you should just follow the Constitution. Just vote for candidates who are natural born citizens. That is what I do. And, if he is on my ballot, I will be voting for Ted Cruz, a citizen since the moment he was born.
No more nonsense. Obama cannot run again!
If you aren't going to read what I post, I don't really see any point in reading what you post. Dialogue is based on reciprocity.