[gdani]

Vatel's "Law of Nations", which the founders were known to have relied on and consulted, defined natural born as born in the country of citizen parents. (Plural)

It makes zero difference what "Law of Nations" says if that language was never incorporated into either the Constitution or the U.S. Code.

And a letter from John Jay to George Washington said this:

Again...

[LearsFool]

It makes zero difference what "Law of Nations" says if that language was never incorporated into either the Constitution or the U.S. Code.

Well if we're not as familiar with the term as the framers and ratifiers clearly were (Wonder why they didn't see any need to spell it out?), we can either pull definitions out of our individual hats (as some are wont to do) or try to recover their definition. Which would you suggest?

[DannyTN]

"It makes zero difference what "Law of Nations" says if that language was never incorporated into either the Constitution or the U.S. Code."

It's obvious that "Natural Born Citizen" is different from "Citizen" or the clause in the constitution becomes redundant. Whether or not Vatel's makes no difference depends on whether there can be made an argument that "Natural Born" meant something other than Vatel's definition to the founders.

Of course the question is moot if the Supreme Court remains too chicken to take the matter up. At least until a state passes an eligibility law that defines the meaning of "natural Born", or until a state passes an eligibility law that leaves it undefined and a Secretary of State enforces Vatel's definition and is challenged.