Interesting you’d say that. There are cases in which there was a “slight” reference to NBC. I’ve read Vattel, it’s online. I know it’s not our Constitution, but George Washington borrowed it from the library and never returned it. He felt it was important.
Perhaps, whomever has standing, (now who knows), can get the Supremes to look at it. But I don’t hold out hope.
Other than the first Presidents, whom couldn’t have been NBC’s because America didn’t exist yet, the 19th Amendment (?) fixed the slave issue of citizenship, why have there been no, non NBC’s of “my definition” if you will, up until Obama? Chester Arthur rumblings excluded. (i think that was him)
In interpreting this text, we are guided by the principle that "[t]he Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning." . . . Normal meaning may of course include an idiomatic meaning, but it excludes secret or technical meanings that would not have been known to ordinary citizens in the founding generation.
I would argue that it is much more likely that "ordinary citizens" would have understood "natural born citizen" as referring to something like the British common law concept of "natural born subject, rather than to the work of a Swiss legal theorist. Have you any evidence suggesting that Vattel's work was "known to ordinary citizens in the founding generation"?
Certainly most people who run for President fit your definition. However, Barry Goldwater, John McCain, and B.H. Obama, who do not, have been nominated by the major parties with little hesitation re: “natural born citizen”. If you want to lobby to have your definition written into law, go for it.