Vattel claimed, "The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens."
However, the very first congress, in its first full year, passed the "Naturalization Act of 1790" which said children born to two citizen parents and not born in the country were considered "natural born citizens." That phrase.
The act was repealed in later years but that's not the point.
One, it shows the founders were not strictly limited by Vattel's view. Two, it shows McCain, George Romney and others that birther's decry would've clearly been considered "natural born citizens" buy our founders. Third, the Vattel argument is self-defeating since he says "natural-born citizens" is the same as "native." Fourth, it suggests "natural born citizens" ("natives") means what the Congress says it does.
If any Supreme Court would review this issue, I believe it would find zero distinction between what we call "native born" and what is phrased "natural born" in the Constitution which is just as Vattel did.
Thus, using current law and precedent, the court would only exclude as POTUS or VP candidates those naturalized, those never citizens and, presumably, those who formally renounced U.S. citizenship.
Well that sure explains the tampering to SCOTUS cases to remove Minor from the possibility of discovery by millions of people who will search the internet and never step inside a law library. Yeah. Why go to that length for something so inconsequential..... yeah. Not buying it at all. Just saying.... someone else DID think it important enough to do. Don’t you want to know who? Its a big deal. The truth matters. History matters. Someone tried to erase it. That doesn’t concern you?? Really?
>> Birthers love Vattel but Vattel is clearly not a limiting factor on what the founder’s believed. <<
Oh, shucks! Now you’ve ruined my day!