The Holy Grail of POTUS Eligibility Law Review Articles (re: Obama, Arthur).

naturalborncitizen ^ | 8/25/2009 | rxsid

[rxsid]

The Holy Grail of POTUS Eligibility Law Review Articles:
Mr. Obama and Mr. Arthur… Meet Attorney George Collins

Rarely, when conducting legal research does one find a historical document that is directly on point. But even more rare is to find a document which is directly on point multiple times. But that’s exactly what has happened this week. A historical document which destroys every bogus point being made by Obama POTUS eligibility supporters was recently discovered by a cracker jack team of university students from UCONN. They call themselves UNDEAD REVOLUTION.

...

as a lead in to their work, I offer you one of their superb historical finds. It’s an article from The American Law Review dated Sept./Oct. 1884. The American Law Review was a premier legal journal - the brain child of Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendel Holmes.

...

The article I am about to show you was published in The American Law Review, written by George D. Collins, Esq. Attorney Collins was the Secretary of the California Bar Association. His name was recognized nationally for cases in the federal courts and moreso due to his regular publishing of articles via The American Law review.

ARE PERSONS BORN IN THE UNITED STATES IPSO FACTO CITIZENS THEREOF?

The article provides historical opposition for every single point raised by Obama eligibility pundits and destroys all propaganda in its path.

The article is written in a clear and concise manner, easily understood by lawyers and lay persons alike. I will now introduce each relevant issue confronted in this article and then present the article in full for your review.

OBAMA POTUS ELIGIBILITY MYTHS DESTROYED BY MR. GEORGE COLLINS

MYTH #1: Chester Arthur’s British birth was known and accepted by the American people.

This article was written in Summer 1884, while Chester Arthur was still President. Since The American Law Review was such an esteemed legal publication, old Chester must have been somewhat intimidated by the report of Mr. Collins. This is because the article makes perfectly clear that to be a natural born citizen one must have been born to a US citizen father.

Chester’s father William was not naturalized until 1843, 14 years after Chester was born. This meant that Chester Arthur was a British subject at birth and was therefore not eligible to be President as was first reported at this blog back in December 2008.

It has been argued that Chester Arthur’s occupation of the White House set a legal precedent for Obama since both Chester and Barack were born of British fathers. But the public – at the time Chester was running for VP and later when he became POTUS – never knew that Chester Arthur was a British subject since he successfully lied to the public about his parental heritage.

The law review article goes into great detail concerning the issue of who exactly rises to the level of natural born citizen. It discusses law cases and legal precedent in its analysis, but it does not even mention the current President – Chester Arthur – even though Attorney Collins steadfastly denies that a person born on US soil to an alien father could be a natural born citizen.

If Attorney Collins – esteemed lawyer, Secretary of the Bar Association and nationally known legal journalist – had thought his current President at the time this article was published – Chester Arthur – was a British subject at birth, then the article would have required a discussion of that point.

But the article does not mention President Chester Arthur because Chester Arthur managed – through blatant deceit - to cover that issue up. He successfully concealed his British birth from the American people. This law review article is proof of that conclusion.

MYTH #2: Lynch v. Clark ( a New York State case, not federal) is legal precedent for Obama to be considered a natural born citizen.

Despite the fact that state court cases have absolutely no legal weight of authority in federal court, Obama eligibility supporters cite this case often. Attorney Collins tears the decision to shreds and exposes its faulty conclusions.

MYTH #3: Common law states that being born on the soil – Jus Soli – makes one a “natural born subject” and therefore every person born on US soil is a “natural born citizen”.

Attorney Collins takes this on directly and establishes clearly that there is no common law in the United States. He also explains that natural born citizens are in no way, shape or form, the same as natural born subjects.

MYTH #4: Vattell’s definition of a natural born citizen was not considered by the framers.

Attorney Collins discusses Vattell in great detail. And Collins agrees that to be a natural born citizen one must be born on the soil of parents who were themselves citizens. Collins quotes Vattell.

But more important is the fact that Collins makes it clear Vattell’s definition of “natural born citizen” was not actually Vattell’s definition.

This is very important.

The definition of “natural born citizen” was not created by Vattell in his treatise, “Law of Nations.” That treatise simply discussed the established body of law known as “the law of nations”. [Ed. Right. If I'm not mistaken, "law of nations" goes back to the days of the Roman's.] The definition of natural born citizen discussed in Vattell’s treatise was actually the definition established by the body of law known as “law of nations”.

Attorney Collins makes all of this quite clear in the article below. Now please review Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution:

The Congress shall have power…To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the Law of Nations;

The capital letters are not in reference to Vattell’s treatise, but they are in reference to the body of law Vattell wrote about – the actual “law of nations”. And that body of law - according to Attorney Collins as well as Vattell – held that a “natural born citizen” was somebody with connections to the nation for having been born on the soil as well as having been born of citizen parents. In Article 1, Section 8, we therefore have a direct recognition that the framers respected the law of nations.

DOUBLE ALLEGIANCE TO THE NATION

This is what the framers required for the Commander In Chief. Any child of immigrants from any nation could become President – as long as his parents became naturalized US citizens before that child was born on US soil. In their wisdom, the framers sought two generations of US citizenship. This discriminates against no race at all.

To be an American has nothing to do with race. It has to do with being a person cloaked in liberty – free from monarchy, free of repression, free forever.

...

If we allow persons born in the US of alien fathers to be President of the US then Kim Jong Il, Osama Bin Laden and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are all eligible to have their direct offspring become President of the United States and Commander In Chief of our Armed Forces."

The article

http://www.scribd.com/doc/19071886/Are-Persons-Born-Within-the-United-States-Ipso-Facto-Citizens-Thereof-George-D-Collins

More here:
http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/08/25/the-holy-grail-of-potus-eligibility-law-review-articles-mr-obama-and-mr-arthur-meet-attorney-george-collins/

[rxsid]

Ping!

[penelopesire]

PING AND BOOKMARK!

[Jo Nuvark]

PING WHY EYE!

[stuartcr]

How will this actually change anything?

[TenthAmendmentChampion]

bttt

[TenthAmendmentChampion]

“If we allow persons born in the US of alien fathers to be President of the US then Kim Jong Il, Osama Bin Laden and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are all eligible to have their direct offspring become President of the United States and Commander In Chief of our Armed Forces.”

The DNC is looking into drafting procedures even as we speak.

[plsjr]

As long as MOST of us fail to stand for the rule of law ... nothing.

What will YOU (plural) do?

[cvq3842]

I wonder what laws were signed by President Arthur. Were any states admitted to the Union during his term? Maybe they will try to invalidate that admission . . .

(I’m in my own little world, I know.)

[bmwcyle]

ping

[GloriaJane]

bookmark

[Man50D]

Bookmark

[rxsid]

"The DNC is looking into drafting procedures even as we speak."

Indeed, only...they are attempting to get away with setting the precedent with Barry!

As we know, Arthur didn't set precedent, because the public didn't know he was a British subject at birth, quite unlike Barry of today. Although, both lied to conceal their past in some way.

[bgill]

Take that, you usurper!

Most definitely bookmarked.

[stuartcr]

If I knew what could be done, then I would decide.

[SERKIT]

Did Barry write about this topic when he was president of Harvard Law Review?.....oh never mind....

[HighlyOpinionated]

BTTT

Doesn’t this also mean that all those “anchor” babies are not anchored at all?

THAT would be a nice outcome of this study and report.

Has someone notified Dr. Orly Taitz about this?

[astyanax]

Decided to join you in your world... ;o)
You made me curious so I had to check.
No states entered into the Union from 1881 to 1885.
Colorado (#38) was in 1876.
North Dakota (#39) was in 1889.
As for laws, wiki has a decent summary.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chester_A._Arthur

[astyanax]

Down with Greenwich Mean Time!
:o)

[justiceseeker93]

The blogger who describes this law review article as "the Holy Grail of all POTUS eligibility law review articles" exaggerates its significance quite a bit.

The principle asserted by Collins, which essentially considers citizenship at birth to be solely patrilineal (except in the case of an illegitimate child), is archaic, having been superseded several times by successive US statutes. The same holds for Collins' outright dismissal of any notion of dual (or multiple) citizenship at birth; the fact is that American law has since recognized that some persons are categorized as such. And his idea that descendants of Chinese immigrants born in the US can never be citizens at birth was reversed by a SCOTUS decision in the 1890s which granted citizenship to such persons based upon the 14th Amendment.

The specific subject of POTUS eligibility is not even addressed in Collins' article, as it did not seem to be a concern of his, despite the fact that Arthur - the president, coincidentally, at the time the article was written - would seemingly not qualify for the presidency under Collins' doctrine, given what we now know about Arthur's father's British citizenship status at the time of Arthur's birth.

[the anti-liberal]

Incidentally, I scanned the pages from that Harvard Law Review journal and uploaded the images about a year ago.

Here they are (pgs. 823-828):

Tort Law - Prenatal Injuries - Supreme Court of Illinois Refuses to Recognize Cause of Action Brought by Fetus Against its Mother for Unintentional Infliction of Prenatal Injuries - Stallman v. Younquist Ill 2d 267, 531 N.E. 2d 355 (1988)

0's Harvard Law Review article

[David]

The blogger who describes this law review article as "the Holy Grail of all POTUS eligibility law review articles" exaggerates its significance quite a bit. The principle asserted by Collins, which essentially considers citizenship at birth to be solely patrilineal (except in the case of an illegitimate child), is archaic, having been superseded several times by successive US statutes.

My judgment on this topic is somewhat clouded by the fact that I would very much appreciate the opportunity to argue the issue to the Supreme Court.

The "natural born" requirement has its roots in ancient Common Law and Continental and Roman Law doctrines. There is in fact, significant Common Law authority on the issue which in my view is likely to be viewed as controlling.

As a theoretical proposition, there is significant support for the Father citizen rule and perhaps even for a Two Parent rule. And I don't think subsequent US Citizenship statutes would necessarily overrule these doctrines.

However I am also convinced that in Obama's case, even though you ought to be able to find him ineligible, if the Court concludes he was born in the US, he is almost certainly likely to win. And, on the other hand, if the Court concludes he was born in Mombasa, he is almost certainly likely to lose.

There are in fact also reasons to examine the outcome on the born in the USA facts.

Consider this hypothetical. A current citizen of the US was born in the US. Both parents are US Citizens. The paternal Grandfather was an immigrant and naturalized US Citizen. However under the law of the country of his origin, the current person is also a citizen of that country. Is there an argument the current person is not eligible to serve as President? If so, having reached a signficant age of seniority, is such an argument enhanced by the fact that the current person also holds a Passport from the country of his grandfather's origin?

[politicalmerc]

Ping.

[rxsid]

Interesting.

Does (for example) British Common law "extend past" children of the subject? From what I've read, it seems to indicate "children" and not any further. But there could be British case law that would address subsequent generations.

If that were the case, and controlling, then perhaps a large portion of our country would still be considered British Subjects and/or citizens of other countries due to their American revolutionary and before ancestors having come from another land. Following that, only "Native American Indians" might be considered as NBC.

I would say the concept's in Law of Nations supersedes that of British common law, on this issue, as it's been "on the books" far longer that the latter.

[rxsid]

I still like Leo's example of:

If Barry is eligible with his foreign national father (& his foreign citizenship at birth), then Kim Jong Il, et' al, would be able to have their son/daughter born in this country, be eligible to the POTUS and thus Commander in Chief.

I think there is zero percent chance that was the intention of the framers...and good for our national security in these modern times.

[rxsid]

"and good for our national security"

and NOT good for our national security

[djf]

Yup.

He is not a “natural born citizen”. His father WAS NOT an American Citizen.

All the argument about where he was born is kind of fluff and irrelevant. If it could be proved he was born in Kenya, that solidifies the case.

But he could have been born on the White House steps - and he still would not be a “Natural born Citizen”.

[Diver Dave]

bump to mark the thread

[nufsed]

Thank you very much for posting this. Despite the charges of nuts and conspiracy theorists, this topic has been very well covered on the FR. This being only the most recent example. If they had 1/10th the discussion in the media a year ago, this would have been settled before the election.

[LucyT]

Thanks, rxsid and David.

Pinging The List.

[SatinDoll]

“...he could have been born on the White House steps - and he still would not be a “Natural born Citizen”.”

Exactly.

The birth certificate is actually a red herring, just as Presdient Arthur’s accuser charged him with being born in Canada, a charge that was false. It doesn’t really matter where he was born, he would still not be a natural born citizen.

Rather, Arthur’s father simply hadn’t yet naturalized as a U.S. citizen when his son was born in Vermont. He didn’t naturalize until 14 years after Chester A. Arthur’s birth.

[unspun]

Good ping, Lucy.

And there’s more to come and not “just from” Leo D.

[justiceseeker93]

...I would very much appreciate the opportunity to argue the issue to the Supreme Court.

I only wish that your dream comes true!

[justiceseeker93]

FYI, no states were admitted to the Union during Arthur's time in office (less than a term, since he became president following the assassination death of Garfield). The first federal civil service law was passed and signed.

Arthur's administration (surprisingly, considering his somewhat shady reputation upon entering office) was considered by historians to be well run - no big scandals, no wars of consequence, no major economic crises.

[LibertyRocks]

Bookmarked for when I fix my computer... :(

[David]

Does (for example) British Common law "extend past" children of the subject? From what I've read, it seems to indicate "children" and not any further. But there could be British case law that would address subsequent generations. If that were the case, and controlling, then perhaps a large portion of our country would still be considered British Subjects and/or citizens of other countries due to their American revolutionary and before ancestors having come from another land. Following that, only "Native American Indians" might be considered as NBC. I would say the concept's in Law of Nations supersedes that of British common law, on this issue, as it's been "on the books" far longer that the latter.

Somebody else said that about the Law of Nations--that just isn't so. The Law of Nations is an 18th Century Document (1758); the Common Law dates to the 12th Century; and concepts about subjects and citizens date back to the Roman Empire.

Further, the Common Law is the Law in the US; Law of Nations is not.

Reason Law of Nations is significant is that the principal drafters of the Constitution were aware of it and had read it and used it as a resource for their work. But the actual legal impact of the terms stands for itself--the concept of a common law subject which was lifted to the Constitution as a citizen is a pure Common Law topic (maybe the founders thought as described in Law of Nations--but the law is the Common Law).

Further, there is another body of law that is also significant and that is Roman law about citizens.

Law of Nations is just another treatise on legal topics of the day--it isn't law; it just purports to be a summary of the author's view of what the law is; real lawyers don't cite that stuff unless they can't come up with real authority to support their argument.

I doubt that Common Law would be viewed as "extending past" but the point of my hypothetical is that there are people out there in the US who have presumably Citizen Parents whose citizen parents are also citizens of another country; and who themselves are citizens of that other country who can still get second country Passports based on their citizenship.

I don't think anything like that would have happened at Common Law although you look at the successors to Edward the III after the death of the Black Prince and see that they were really all French first and wonder.

On the other hand, they clearly did deal with issues about children born outside the country; and children born as subjects to parents who were clearly agents of another sovereign when born and there is commentary in the common law about how those people were addressed.

[Frantzie]

This is from Leo Donofrio’s web site? Looks like Leo is still in the game.

[rolling_stone]

And his idea that descendants of Chinese immigrants born in the US can never be citizens at birth was reversed by a SCOTUS decision in the 1890s which granted citizenship to such persons based upon the 14th Amendment.

And who was on that Supreme Court? Justice Gray who was appointed by the later found to be ineligible Arthur.
Wong Kim Arc
http://fortheconstitution.com/index.php/blog/show/WROTNOWSKI-APPLICATION-REFERRED-TO-FULL-COURT-BY-JUSTICE-SCALIA-—DISTRIBUTED-FOR-CONFEREN.html

[plsjr]

Remember the old german saying:
“They came for the jews, but I was not a jew so I did nothing ... they came for the intellectuals, but I was not an intellectual, so I did nothing ...”

Eventually, they get to you and you have no one else to stand with.

We believe in truth and justice in maintaining the rule of law - they believe the ends justifies the means, and their goal is the destruction of America on the way to establishing a worldwide fascist oligarchy.

I believe this blatant disregard of the Constitution needs to be our ‘line in the sand’. It’s a clear illustration of their complete disregard for what America is built upon. If we continue to raise the issue, the vast majority of mature, adult, reasoning (non-ideologue) Americans (I hope they exist) will become educated about the founding principles, see the transgressions and insist on correction and compliance.

If we don’t, they will continue their piecemeal destruction until they have sufficient power.

Then it’s done, just like it was in Russia, Germany, China, North Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia ...

[Drew68]

If we allow persons born in the US of alien fathers to be President of the US then Kim Jong Il, Osama Bin Laden and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are all eligible to have their direct offspring become President of the United States and Commander In Chief of our Armed Forces.

If their offspring were born in the United States, then they are Natural Born Citizens and eligible for the Presidency no matter how loathsome their fathers might have been.

Most importantly, however, they have to receive more votes than their opponents.

[BP2]

Law of Nations is just another treatise on legal topics of the day—it isn't law; it just purports to be a summary of the author's view of what the law is; real lawyers don't cite that stuff unless they can't come up with real authority to support their argument.

The SCOTUS uses Vattel when it needs to know what the Founding Fathers rationale was for certain phrases, such as “to keep and bear arms”:

When there's really no where else to turn, "The Law of Nations" will be the primary reference used to define, in the context of the Constitution (not subsequent statutes), the term "Natural-born citizen":

[David]

The SCOTUS uses Vattel when it needs to know what the Founding Fathers rationale was for certain phrases, such as “to keep and bear arms”:

Sure. But that's not a citation as a legal precedent but rather for the purpose of defining what the intent was.

I'm not in any way critical of Law of Nations or of using it as secondary authority.

But it's a mistake to look at it as overriding legal authority of greater significant than the common law or the historical legal authorities. Cause it isn't.

On the narrow issue here ("natural born"); Law of Nations and the letters exchanged among Madison and Jefferson and Hancock are a pretty good indication that the founder's obtained and used the term by adapting the legal concept of "natural born subject" from English Common Law. I think you then ought to look at the underlying Common Law to find out what the legal rules are that would determine whether or not a given individual is or is not a "natural born".

Although I also think that on the Obama facts, there is a pretty good legal argument that he ought to flunk even if he was born in Hawaii--I doubt the Supreme Court would come down that way if the issue were presented.

I think the way you get the legal system involved to determine that he is not President is likely to require that you prove or at least make a prima facia showing that he was not born in the US. Although I will also concede that to a large extent, my view is somewhat affected by the fact that I see the evidence, secondary though it is, as pretty conclusive that he was born in Mombasa which is located in modern day Kenya.

[stuartcr]

Those are fine sentiments, shared by many. What exactly is to be done, what course of action is to be taken, that hasn’t already?

[rxsid]

Not if their father (or mother) were a foreign national at the time of their birth. They would be considered citizens, but not NBC. The child would be born with foreign citizenship (allegiance)...in the case of being born to a British Subject. We know the framers wanted to prevent such foreign influence on the position of POTUS.

[Drew68]

Not if their father (or mother) were a foreign national at the time of their birth. They would be considered citizens, but not NBC.

What specific passage in the Constitution addresses this precise definition of Natural Born Citizen and, if you can point it out to me, why did Chief Justice John Roberts willingly disregard it when he administered the Oath of Office to Obama?

[cvq3842]

LOL!

[cvq3842]

thanks

[cvq3842]

thanks

[rxsid]

Various tid bits...

Vattel's "Law of Nations" is based on "natural law." The concept of natural law has been around since the time of the Greeks.

We know that many of the founders and framers were well versed in ancient western civ.

Allegedly, Thomas Jefferson wrote to his nephew that there were three books every gentleman had to have familiarity with; Plutarch's "Lives", Livy's "History of Rome" and Virgil's Aeneid.

"Plato defines justice in the Republic as conforming to nature (Republic, IV, 444d)."

"Aristotle brings to natural law theory an essentially new contribution by deriving the concept of right from the idea of justice, the latter being the appropriate mean that the judge maintains between the parties in court (Nicom. Ethics, Book V, Ch. IV, 8)."
http://etext.virginia.edu/cgi-local/DHI/dhi.cgi?id=dv3-04

I think attorney Apuzzo is spot on here:
The Law of Nations as U.S. Federal Common Law and Not English Common Law Defines What an Article II "Natural Born Citizen" Is
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/08/law-of-nations-and-not-english-common.html

"Natural law or the law of nature (Latin: lex naturalis) is a theory that posits the existence of a law whose content is set by nature and everywhere.[1] [Ed. ex. "All men are created equal"] The phrase natural law is opposed to the positive law (which is human-made) of a given political community, society, or nation-state, and thus can function as a standard by which to criticize that law.[2][Ed. i.e. Declaration of Independence]. In natural law jurisprudence, on the other hand, the content of positive law cannot be known without some reference to the natural law (or something like it). Used in this way, natural law can be invoked to criticize decisions about the statutes, but less so to criticize the law itself. Some use natural law synonymously with natural justice or natural right (Latin ius naturale), although most contemporary political and legal theorists separate the two.

Natural law theories have exercised a profound influence on the development of English common law,[3] and have featured greatly in the philosophies of Thomas Aquinas, Francisco Suárez, Richard Hooker, Thomas Hobbes, Hugo Grotius, Samuel von Pufendorf, John Locke and Emmerich de Vattel [Ed. Both referenced during the Constitutional Convention]. Because of the intersection between natural law and natural rights, it has been cited as a component in United States Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law

Natural law becomes more "defined" during the days of the Romans.

"Evolution of the Roman Legal System and Classical Roman Law"

"As the Roman republic grew and then transformed into an empire, its rulers faced the increasing challenge of governing an evermore diverse and far-flung population. Legal questions and disputes inevitably arose not only among Roman citizens, but with non-citizens living in or traveling through its territories, to whom the ius civile did not apply. This led to the development of the ius gentium ("law of nations") and ius naturale ("natural law")."
http://www.law.berkeley.edu/robbins/RomanLegalTradition.html

Roman law had an influence on British Common law (& Blackstone).

"By the time of the rediscovery of the Roman law in Europe in the 12th and 13th centuries, the common law had already developed far enough to prevent a Roman law reception as it occurred on the continent.[30] However, the first common law scholars, most notably Glanvill and Bracton, as well as the early royal common law judges, had been well accustomed with Roman law...
The impact Roman law had decreased sharply after the age of Bracton, but the Roman divisions of actions into in rem and in personam used by Bracton had a lasting effect and laid the groundwork for a return of Roman law structural concepts in the 18th and 19th century. Signs of this can be found in Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England,[33]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law#Medieval_English_common_law

Historical Practice and the Contemporary Debate Over Customary International Law

"...the historical practice of both English and early American courts with respect to the law of nations."
"I. Judicial Power in the Early Republic
First, the history. Professors Bellia and Clark argue that the founding generation entertained an "initial assumption that the United States—like the states—had received the common law and thus could prosecute and punish common law crimes, including offenses against the law of nations."6 Bellia and Clark acknowledge that this assumption was widely rejected in the course of debates over the constitutionality of the Sedition Act.7 Indeed, when the Supreme Court definitively interred the doctrine of federal common law crimes in the 1812 case of United States v. Hudson & Goodwin, it could say that the question already had long been "settled in public opinion."8

A related debate in the early Republic, however, suggests even greater hostility to the idea of federal common lawmaking powers. As Justice Souter has pointed out, "the founding generation . . . join[ed] . . . an appreciation of its immediate and powerful common-law heritage with caution in settling that inheritance on the political systems of the new Republic."10 The colonial and early state governments carefully limited their reception of English common law to those principles that were applicable to local conditions.11 Citizens of the young Republic often viewed the common law with considerable hostility; after all, they had just fought a revolution to throw off English rule..."

This ambivalence played out in debates over ratification of the new national Constitution. All participants seem to have understood that the new federal Constitution did not receive the English common law as part of national law,13 unlike many of the state constitutions. Opponents of ratification went so far as to complain that the proposed document failed to guarantee common law rights.14 Federalists responded that receiving the common law into the federal Constitution would trample the diversity of the common law, as received in the several states; even worse, a federal reception would render the common law "immutable" and not subject to congressional revision.15 Hence, "the Framers chose to recognize only particular common-law concepts, such as the writ of habeas corpus, U.S. Const. Art. I, § 9, cl. 2, and the distinction between law and equity, U.S. Const., Amdt. 7, by specific reference in the constitutional text."16 They insisted, however, that any general reception of the English common law into federal law would be "destructive to republican principles."17

...More generally, the early American reaction to the common law in both the Federal Constitution and the states suggests a general suspicion of unwritten, judge-defined law and a strong preference for legislative primacy. This is quite consistent, of course, with the Framers' decision explicitly to authorize Congress to "define and punish . . . Offenses against the Law of Nations."18

Much more here:
http://www.columbialawreview.org/articles/historical-practice-and-the-contemporary-debate-over-customary-international-law

No question in my mind that the framers clearly got their definition for "Natural" born citizen from Vattel's compilation of natural law.