“The issue here is of natural law that the Constitutional Founders base the natural born citizen clause”
That is your error. They were NOT arguing Vattel’s natural law, but using a common legal term, with a meaning known to all.
Notice how the Mass Legislature, varied between NBC & NBS at random - using them as interchangeable terms:
In February, 1785, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING NICHOLAS ROUSSELET AND GEORGE SMITH.” in which it was declared that Nicholas Rousselet and George Smith “shall be deemed, adjudged, and taken to be citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of natural born citizens.”
In July, 1785, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING MICHAEL WALSH.” in which it was declared that Michael Walsh “shall be deemed, adjudged, and taken to be a citizen of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of a natural born citizen.”
In July, 1786, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JONATHAN CURSON AND WILLIAM OLIVER” in which it was declared that Jonathan Curson and William Oliver “shall be deemed adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born citizens.”
In March, 1787, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING WILLIAM MARTIN AND OTHERS.” in which it was declared that William Martin and Others,”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.”
In March, 1787, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING EDWARD WYER AND OTHERS THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that William Martin and Others,”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken, to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, privileges and immunities of natural born subjects.”
In October, 1787, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING BARTHOLOMY DE GREGOIRE, AND MARIA THERESA, HIS WIFE, AND THEIR CHILDREN.” in which it was declared that Bartholomy de Gregoire, and Maria Theresa, his wife, their children,”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of natural born citizens.”
In November, 1787, the Massachusetts legislature passed “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING ALEXANDER MOORE, AND OTHERS, HEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that Alexander Moore and others,”shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, & entitled to all the privileges, liberties, and immunities of natural born subjects.”
In June, 1788, the Massachusetts legislature passed, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING WILLIAM MENZIES, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that William Menzies and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free citizens of this Commonwealth, and intitled to all the liberties, privileges & immunities of natural born subjects.”
In November, 1788, the Massachusetts legislature passed, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING ELISHA BOURN, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that Elisha Bourn and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, & entitled to all the liberties, privileges & immunities of natural born Citizens.”
In February, 1789, the Massachusetts legislature passed, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING JAMES HUYMAN, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that James Huyman and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the Liberties, Privileges and Immunities of natural born subjects.”
Complete nonsense and here's in part why.
Former King subjects who were naturalized as citizen of the United States were still considered British as "natural born subject" of the King by British law [not natural].
As of consequence, the British blockaded American ports and took thousands of American citizens from US ships to serve the British Navy because of under English Common law, birth itself was an act of naturalization [not natural] that required no consent of allegiance and that could never be changed. It was “perpetual allegiance” to Great Britain - "Once a Brit always a Brit".
This baneful English Common Law doctrine, [not natural] to say the least, received the greatest degree of hate from American citizens. The English Common Law was extremely hated that the United States declared war on it and England. This English Common law [not natural] was thrown off completely in the garbage bin of history when the US Constitution was adopted, and you think it was the original intent of the Founders? You're smoking something illegal. When an immigrant becomes a US citizen, the naturalized citizen renounces his former royal titles and sovereigns when he takes the oath allegiance to the United States.
Why is that Ms. Rogers? Obama was born a foreigner, or he inherited a double or triple allegiance at birth to other foreign countries. That's not natural.
Even today, the United States frowns upon double allegiances as it is written in the oath of allegiance to the US when one becomes a citizen. However, the misconstruing by the court about the 14th Amendment has created double allegiances since WKA. That's not natural.
A quote for Congress report No. 784, June 22, 1874.
“The United States have not recognized a ‘double allegiance.’ By our law a citizen is bound to be ‘true and faithful’ alone to our government.”
And the reason why:
"It wouldn’t be practical for the United States to claim a child as a citizen when the child’s natural country of origin equally claims him/her because doing so could leave the child with two competing legal obligations, e.g., military duty. "
Again, what foreign national(s) was Obama born as? Oh yes, that's right. He was born as a British/Kenyan subject to the crown of Great Britain. Obama is not a natural born citizen of the US.
The Common Wealth known as Massachusetts was not the United States under the US Constitution at the time, and I noticed you let one slip with your usual copy/pasting where it says 'natural born Citizens' instead of 'natural born subjects' after the state of Massachusetts ratified the US Constitution in 1788.
In November, 1788, the Massachusetts legislature passed, “AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING ELISHA BOURN, AND OTHERS, THEREIN NAMED.” in which it was declared that Elisha Bourn and others “shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be free Citizens of this Commonwealth, & entitled to all the liberties, privileges & immunities of natural born Citizens.”
Your machination will not ever persuade making Obama a Natural Born Citizen.