The 14th Amendment naturalizes citizens at birth by statute, and that man-made law does not encompass natural born citizens, and it did not overturn A2S1C5. You do know the intent and the purpose of the NBC clause? It's natural law and not positive law; the 14th Amendment is not natural law.
Do you think women have a natural law right to participate on and equal footing with men in representative government?
They have a right by Amendment or law but that law is not natural law. BTW, The right to vote, is not absolute. Age, criminals, aliens are examples of people who cannot legally vote in the United States.
One is, under U.S. law - either born a citizen or naturalized as a citizen.
U.S. law should always reflect our best understanding of natural law. That is why women are currently seen to have the natural right to vote - women voting is in no way unnatural - they have the natural right to be free and to participate in representative government.
Vattel’s definition was about indigenous or natives of a nation - and even if you change it to “natural born” he did nothing to differentiate between “natural born citizens” and “natural born subjects”.
So by the laws the founders were familiar with - to be “natural born” one had to be born into that condition - as opposed to being “naturalized”.
Vattel was consistent in this as well, one either was born into a condition of allegiance and was therefore “natural born” or one had to be “naturalized”.
Rubio was born a citizen of these United States according to U.S. law, which should always reflect our best understanding of natural law.
Natural law is not the sum total of that which is encompassed by what one Swiss philosopher wrote in one book in the 1700’s.
Are you saying that, by natural law, women do not have the right to participate on an equal footing with men in a representative government?