No, I won't. But I'm sure you're going to make up some real good ones.
But see here, you are bringing out an "authority" argument when I have put forth an etymology argument. Argue against the etymology, or admit you can't.
Actually what I am bringing out here is evidence that your claim that there was one, and only one, accepted definition of natural-born citizen is like so much of the rest of your stuff, complete nonsense. That it would have been nice if the Constitution defined natural-born citizen but, alas, they didn't. And therefore Supreme Court decisions and Congressional legislation is not "amending the Constitution". It's necessary law making or interpretation.
You have attempted to make such a point, but the preponderance of the evidence is against you. You have only one "authority" from the requisite time and place, and he later recants this position he advocated by his actions in approving the denial of citizenship to James McClure based on his not having been born after his father naturalized.
I not only have the people who were in the right place and right time to know what was meant, I have the very meaning of the word itself as proof that Vattel was the source of it's usage.