I provided both the original and my 'updated' version and underlined the changes implied by the 14th Amendment and modern practice.
Original intent is ‘father’. Vattel did not dispute that.
Vattel WROTE that. The Framers didn't. It remains a conclusion, not a presumptive fact, that this is 'original intent'. The Law of Nations is not referenced in the Constitution as the font of all wisdom. It is merely an important part of the historical context, and that's all. It is not part of the Constitution.
Nor did the 14th Amendment enumerate anything about natural born status.
I never said that it did.
**Equal protection is not the same as equal opportunity.**
True. Thank God!
Your argument might make more sense if everyone was cooperative, but you need a devil’s advocate to bounce off your points. We can’t expect the Establishment Republicans and Flaky Chief Just-us Roberts to be cooperative, and we certainly can’t expect democrats to be honest or helpful.
All true. I'm just expounding a point of view I think is valid.
I've been pretty consistent on this. I reject any rigid formulaic 17th century definition of natural born citizen unless the advocates of this notion can prove that a rigid formulaic definition actually existed and was adopted by consensus by the Framers. I have never seen this accomplished in 15 years of studying this issue.
The widest consensus held was for the primacy of jus sanguinis over jus solis and this is the position of Vattel. I take that as the starting point, not the common law notion of jus solis with an overlay of jus sanguinis. That is one of the royalist notions the Framers were repudiating.
You are right that needs to be addressed to avoid loose ends. This is a very thorough examination of just that point. http://www.yjil.org/docs/pub/39-2-tutt-treaty.pdf