That’s funny (in a sort of “it makes as much sense as applying Swiss law and not English law to define ‘natural born’” sort of way).
We overthrew English law in something called the "War of American Independence." The American law which replaced it was mostly based on the blueprint provided by Vattel.
“in a sort of “it makes as much sense as applying Swiss law and not English law to define ‘natural born’” sort of way.”
I’ll assume that you are refering to Emerick Vittal’s Law of Nation’s (Natural Law).
Vittal’s book above is not law as you suggest in your sentence above. Vittal was a legal theorist (jurist), and his book was a well known work on legal theory in the late 1700’s and early 1800’s. It has been well documented that Ben Franklin supplied 6 copies of this text for use by the delegates to the Constitutional convention.
It is illogical to assume that the delegates used the exact words of Vittal when writting the Constitution, rather than use the words of Blackstone’s Commentary on British common Law.....(which by the way is unwritten and can be best described as “traditional” or customary legal theory.) and meant to apply the British concept of “subject.”
The legal underpinnings for the government/people interface is a polar opposite in the US v Great Britin. Subjects are responsible to goverment as in Great Britin, and for much of Europe. The US struck out on new ground and made the goverment responsible to the “citizens”.....clearly a rejection of British/European legal practice.
When they wrote the Constitution the Founders established “statutary law” (written Law) and rejected customary law as practiced by their former masters the British.
Your comment defies logic, history, and the rulings of the USSC through it’s history.