The ending of this unpublished essay is quite telling because Pinckney claims that both WKA & Minor v Happersett use English law to define NBC, when in fact Minor v Happersett conclusively uses natural and almost quote Vattel verbatim in saying that a NBC is one born of citizen parents, both parents must be US citizens at the time of the child's birth.
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. -Chief Justice Waite in Minor v. Happersett (1875)
OTOH, if one goes to the founding era & brings up the congressional archives of a Mr Pinckney, he is very clear that a natural born is of 2 US citizen parents, all others even though they may be native to the soil are naturalized citizens or native citizens at the founding as they were Brits before the revolution, thus the reason for the grandfather clause in Article II: “or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution”
From one of my earliest articles:
Historical Fact #3: Additionally, in 1800, Charles Pinckney (Continental Congress (1777-78 and 1784-87) and S.C. state legislature (1779-80, 1786-89, and 1792-96) said the presidential eligibility clause was designed “to insure…attachment to the country”:
“What better way to insure attachment to the country than to require the President to have his American citizenship through his American Father and not through a foreign father. Any child can be born anywhere in the country and be removed by their father to be raised in his native country. The risks would be for the child to return later in life to reside in this country bringing with him foreign influences and intrigues.”
So it is quite ironic that the obots chose to use an unpublished opinion of a man who has the same surname as that of one of our founding fathers who actually signed the US Constitution.