Round and round it goes and where it stops no one knows.
“Whoever Congress naturalizes at birth is an NBC”?
No. That is not what I said. Where did you get that? You are apparently unable to let go of your preconceptions about the matter and even temporarily entertain a different viewpoint.
“by your hydrogen atom example, children born abroad to one citizen parent have always been NBC of the US.”
Read it again. Hydrogen exists whether we observe it, describe it, label it. “Natural born citizenship” does NOT. So, no. It is a legal and philosophical construct.
“I question his [Vattel] exposition as being superior over the constitution”
Vattel was a French philosopher who greatly influenced our founders. They were all well educated in his writings. It is his definition of natural born citizen that is most often cited. But you have to read in context.
The value of reading Vattel is not that what he says has greater authority than the Constitution. He has NO legal authority. He did however expound natural law. It is self evident truth that much of the Constitution is based on. For example, the right to bear arms is based on the natural right to protect ourselves and our property. What he said clearly was on the minds of our founders and serves to help us understand their intent, especially when it is not clear in matters such as this.
But obviously it is only reasonable to put the founders’ own words above any outside commentary when it comes to understanding their intent.
I think my "Whoever Congress naturalizes at birth is an NBC"? is an accurate paraphrase of your view of the law on this question.
I got it from you saying, in post 296, "My contention is that the matter is within the purview of Congress and is determined by whatever naturalization laws are in effect at the time." in combination with "In my opinion, all citizens at birth, by the current Constitution and the applicable law of naturalization, are natural born citizens."
So, if congress passes a naturalization law that attaches citizenship at birth, what is the effect of that? Does that not, under your proposition, translate into NBC by Act of Congress?
You need to explain how the 1790 Act helps you further, because I really don't understand your point in bringing it up. Given what you say, whether the naturalization statute says "NBC" or not is irrelevant. In other words, under your interpretation, the current statute has the same effect the 1790 one did.
An artifact of your approach is that the NBC clause in the constitution becomes living at the whim of Congress. From 1790-1934, persons born abroad of a citizen-mother and alien-father were not even citizens of the US. Then, for a period of time, those persons were stripped of their citizenship before they could otherwise qualify for the presidency (5 years US residency by age 21, or citizenship is stripped, see Bellei case).