The reasons found in your essay are false.
“The English common law did not distinguish between a “natural born subject” and a naturalized subject.”
False statement.
“Therefore, giving the “natural born Citizen” clause the same meaning as a “natural born subject” would have allowed a naturalized citizen to be eligible to be President of the United States.”
Another false statement.
See the section in Lynch reviewing colonial law:
http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_evidence/Lynch_v_Clarke_1844_ocr.pdf
“But assuming the “natural born Citizen” clause had the same meaning as a “natural born subject,” with the Constitution as written it would not have conveyed in any manner that a naturalized citizen was not eligible to be President.”
Another false statement. A naturalized citizen was not interchangeable with a natural born citizen. The both were citizens, but the details varied with the colony with regard to what privileges were given, but the source of the privilege remained different.
Your essay ignores history and the law.
All those statements are true and correct. As the essay proves beyond any possibility of refutation.
A New York State court decision is irrelevant.