Neither the French nor the English translation prior to 1797 would justify saying “Natural born citizen” is found in Vattel. It says, literally if one transliterates it, the “natives or indigenous”, not the “natural born citizen”.
Have you ever been tempted to refer to the natives of Hawaii as the NBC of Hawaii? Or call the Australian aborigines the NBC of Australia? Of course not.
Thus no rational person would believe the Founders used the “precisely analogous” term NBC because they found it in Vattel. Sorry, but if A comes AFTER B, A is not the inspiration for B. That is the way things work in the real world.
And that is why you are nuts.
I have also quotes at length from the Supreme Court, and then you deny the language says what it clearly says...so I conclude you cannot read English.
The Supreme Court says via repetition, “The term “citizen,” as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term “subject” in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people, and he who before as a “subject of the king” is now “a citizen of the State.”
You say that doesn’t mean NBS and NBC are interchangeable, varying only in terms of the form of government.
You cannot read, so I cannot help you. You say they don’t use common law to determine the meaning of NBC when they spend pages doing precisely that. You are nuts.
The entire passage talks about persons naturally becoming citizens when they are born in the country. How would that NOT be equated with natural born citizen?? Your argument is astounding in its ignorance. Further, to be born a native, it still says you have to be born of parents who are citizens. This equates directly with the concept of natural born citizenship. Third, the 1797 translation obviously followed the common usage at the time of natural born citizen. Why would a translator suddenly pluck this term out of thin air unless it was in common use?? This is how dictionaries decide to add words ... because the words have become established within society. Sorry, but your argument is a three-time loser.
I have also quotes at length from the Supreme Court, and then you deny the language says what it clearly says...so I conclude you cannot read English.
None of the language you claim is so clear uses BOTH terms in a way you claim it does, so it's not my English-reading skills that are suspect, but yours.