Replies

Natural law as seen and expounded upon by Vattel would qualify McCain as he would be “deemed” to be born in country because his father was overseas serving his nation not “quitting” it.
Once again...Vattel stated in 215 that laws could ordain what they chose as they were written. "...for, civil or political laws may, for particular reasons, ordain otherwise.
U. S. law applies.

Where do you get in U. S. law that McCain is a natural born citizen?
Where in U.S. law?
1401 - The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth
You say 1401 applies and it couldn't. 1401 wasn't written until 1952. He was born in '36. (I can play the "gotcha game" too)

What principle of natural law as defined WHERE and by WHO requires that a child be born of citizen parents AND in country to be “natural born”?
It's many places and by many people. Do you really want a thorough listing? It could take some time.
You want me to answer Vattel as if you'll "get me" in a contradiction, but Vattel wasn't the only one to write about natural law, he is simply considered the most concise and definitive and that's why he's so often quoted.

Vattel’s definition - so often quoted - would make McCain a native or indigenous citizen - thus a natural born citizen - and thus qualified.

So by the most often quoted definition of “natural born” among birthers - McCain would be qualified.

Natural law as defined WHERE and by WHO requires that a child be born of citizen parents AND in country to be “natural born”?

It seems we find some examples going one way - and some going another - all some combination of the natural law concepts of allegiance at birth due to parentage or place of birth - because there is not ONE definitive definition held outside law and time and space - immortal and immutable.