And who has argued that a statute can change the law of nature?
However, it is within the powers of a country to decide who counts as a citizen, and who gets the privileges accorded to a citizen. Such authority lies with the Congress.
The issue is that whatever disagreements there are regarding the meaning of "natural born citizen", the differences between "natural born citizen", "native-born citizen", and "citizen by birth" became de facto and de jure nil within a generation or two of the Founding Fathers, if not earlier; especially with regards to those born within America and subject to her jurisdiction.
You may cite various authorities regarding what the definition of "natural born citizen" is, whereas others will dispute your definition. If you don't want to leave differences of interpretation up to the Supreme Court, then you're going to need a Constitutional amendment codifying the meaning of the term.
That's just the way it is.
Also, i've posted that lawbook from Pennsylvania which flat out says our "citizenship" comes from Vattel, and the people most likely to know what was intended by the Convention (held in Philadelphia in 1787) was the Philadelphia legal community, which is exactly where that book came from.
Aren't you getting tired of citing the same book that you've been refuted on at least three times by my count?
You did.
"If it means that much to you, advocate for Congress to introduce a statute, or for a Constitutional amendment, to codify the definition of “natural born citizen” ...
Congress cannot change natural law, and not even a constitutional amendment can do that. It can change the eligibility requirements, but what you are suggesting is equivalent to an amendment that can change men into women.
It is beyond the power of law or amendment to do that.
However, it is within the powers of a country to decide who counts as a citizen, and who gets the privileges accorded to a citizen. Such authority lies with the Congress.
Congress has the power of "naturalization." They have no power at all to declare someone "natural born" who isn't. They can make all the citizens they want through "naturalization", but they can make none through nature.
Aren't you getting tired of citing the same book that you've been refuted on at least three times by my count?
Well you clearly have trouble with your understanding. The book has never been refuted by my count. It *IS* proof that this was what they intended in 1787.
You have nothing like it on your side. What you've got is William Rawle making the claim that citizenship is based on English common law in *1828*!!!. And he was wrong, and told by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court he was wrong in 1803! Unanimously! (Negress Flora vs Joseph Grainsberry.)
You don't get much wronger than William Rawle was, and yet he is the most prominent "authority" upon which people have based this English law claims for natural born citizen.