Almost all of the cases you cited had to do with international and maritime law. I have repeatedly said that Vattel was recognized as an authority on those subjects, and was quoted as such.
Doesn’t mean the Founders paid the least bit of attention to Vattel when he said the government should control religion (goodbye, 1st Amendment), that the government should be able to forcibly seize valuable workers to prevent them from leaving the country (goodbye, 4th Amendment), that only elites and military should be permitted to keep and bear arms (goodbye, 2nd Amendment), or that citizens had to be born to citizen parents.
They didn’t. That’s not what “natural born” ever meant.
The 1st Amendment comes from Vattel
There are no natural born subjects of the United States, there are no subjects of the United States of any sort, just as there are no natural born citizens in England. Yet you insist that subject is interchangeable with citizen and natural born is equally interchangeable. Natural born citizen is a unitary phrase, no part of it can be changed without changing the whole. Nevertheless, stipulating for this post...
James I, King of England, tells us who his natural subjects are, that their obedience is commanded by God, that he is their King by the will of God, that it is his right and duty to rule over them.
Are there such natural citizens in the United States? Is there any one person who rules over us by the will of God?
The answer is an emphatic “no”.
The foundational principles of the United States are that all are created equal and government derives its powers from the consent of the governed, not by a king claiming it is the will of God that he should rule and you should bow.
A natural born subject is in no way similar to a natural born citizen.
The foundational principles of the United States are not found in the Colonies, they are new principles. New principles for a new government, a government that is without antecedent government. A government that is a mixture of federal and national, by necessity it draws on the law of nations: respecting the sovereign states as well as internationally. The power of naturalization is not found in the Colonies/States, but in the new government.
“Almost all of the cases you cited had to do with international and maritime law.”
Do you mean the navigation of the lakes, rivers and streams within the United States?
Natural born citizen is a unitary phrase, no part of it can be omitted without changing the fundamental meaning of the phrase.
A natural born subject is in no way similar to a natural born citizen.
A citizen is not a subject.
What is “natural” for a monarch and his subjects is antithetical for a republic and its citizens.
“Natural born” is not a simple adjectival phrase, like “big red”.
A big red ball is fundamentally the same thing as a red ball, a big ball, or a ball.
A natural born citizen is fundamentally different than a natural citizen, a born citizen, or citizen: omitting any part changes the fundamental meaning of the whole.
You believe that a “born citizen” and a “natural born citizen” are the same, that “natural” is superfluous. As we saw with the big red ball, if one part can be omitted then any part can be omitted. Yet that rule can not be applied here unless we accept that a natural citizen, a born citizen, and a citizen, are fundamentally the same. Do you accept that a born citizen and a citizen are the same, even though a citizen may be naturalized? In your view a naturalized citizen is not eligible for the Presidency while a born citizen is, so a born citizen and a citizen are not the same.
It is apparent that no part of the phrase can be omitted without changing the fundamental meaning of the phrase.