“Doing research on “natural born citizen” using sources that predate 2007 will show a clear understanding of the phrase. “
Hmmm...my sources include legislation passed at the time the Constitution was being written, and the US Supreme Court ruling in...1898. Or Lynch, in 1844, or Kent’s Commentaries on American Law from 1826, or Blackstone’s Commentaries from 1803.
There was no ambiguity in the use of natural born citizen. But the phrase included those born to aliens, just as the preceding phrase ‘natural born subject’ had.
If you want to know what the term means, it is better to pay attention to how it was used at the time the Constitution was written, rather than pulling the meaning from a bad translation of Vattel published 10 years later.
You and I have gone around and round on this before. You are still wrong and I am still right. Obama was not the president is not now the president and will never be the president because he is not a natural born citizen. Future histories of this nation will list the years 09 through 12 as the years without a president. They will cite the resurgence of this nation as being a result of the purge of Fabian socialists from American politics.
In the 2020s all you frogs will be muttering about the water getting cooler.
rather than pulling the meaning from a bad translation of Vattel published 10 years later.
Do you really think the founding fathers where incapable of reading French?
Wrong.
"...any place within the king's dominions may make a subject born, but any place within the king's dominions without obedience can never produce a natural subject." Coke, 1608
From WKA, Calvin's Case, and Dicey it IS NOT birth within the realm that determines who is and is not natural-born. It is PERMANENT and EXCLUSIVE ALLEGIANCE.
Obama does NOT meet that requirement.