Frankly, from what I've read of Leo's stuff, he's cracked.
Minor v. Happersett doesn't say what he claims it says. Read it for yourself, carefully, taking notes of every point, and thinking through what they actually say, without referring back to Leo's take on what they say.
Leo is relying on having a law license for authority. But any intelligent person can read these cases for himself or herself, and see what they say. Granted, it takes some work to sort through the arguments.
And they simply don't say what he claims. In fact, Minor v. Happersett not only doesn't say what he claims it says, it clearly indicates that the First Congress intended for all children born abroad of US citizen parents to be considered as natural born citizens.
Since the ONLY thing natural born citizens can do that mere citizens can't is run for President, it's clear that the First Congress, many of whom were literally the same Founding Fathers who developed the Constitution, intended that all children born abroad of US citizen parents should have the right to run for President.
That alone invalidates contention that in order to run for President you must be born on US soil of two US citizen parents. It doesn't include Obama's case, but tell me: How often did people travel in those days? Don't you think a lot of the children born abroad of US citizen parents would have grown up in those foreign countries and only later moved to the United States?
And don't you think that most children of two alien parents, born on US soil, would have been far more American than they were German, or whatever? In fact, many or most of them would probably have been more "American" than the kids born abroad of US citizens.
While the Founding Fathers were undoubtedly aware of Vattel, he was Swiss. The French adopted his approach. The British didn't. We don't have a Swiss/French heritage in this country; our heritage derives from Britain, as we were colonies of Great Britain up to the time of independence.
In fact, all thirteen of the original colonies were colonies of Great Britain, and at the time of independence, had been for - in the minimum case - forty-two years.
"By 1776 about 85% of the white population was of English, Irish, Scottish or Welsh descent, with 9% of German origin and 4% Dutch."
Notice what's present here? And what's missing?
Since the LAST of the thirteen original colonies was established as British fifty-three years prior to the framing of the Constitution, there may not have been anyone at the Constitutional Convention who could even remember a time before the establishment of the original thirteen colonies under British rule.
And the French control all seems to have been to the west and north of those thirteen colonies. An entire other land.
So our entire heritage, founded upon those thirteen quite thoroughly British colonies, came from the UK. Whatever Swiss and French citizenry may have been among us, it was less than 3%.
And there seems to be very little actual evidence in any of the literature I've read (once you get past Donofrio's and Apuzzo's blogs) that the Founding Fathers, while at least some of them were well aware of the Swissman's work, relied on his approach to citizenship - and plenty of evidence that they relied instead upon English common law, which (in the words of James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution," "referred citizenship to the place of birth."
Without reference to the citizenship of the parents, and with the exception of also extending natural born status to the children born abroad of British subjects.
Again, the "natural born" clause was intended as a partial protection. It was never intended to be a Fort Knox against any kind of foreign influence.
Oh, and one more thing:
Your child is most certainly eligible to run for President.