If you look at the “phrase found in a poorly translated philosophy book” (it's actually a Law Dictionary), you'll note that it references Blackstone's Commentaries.
Are you now saying that you think the SCOTUS should now CEASE using Blackstone's Commentaries in its opinions to derive the Framer's understanding of common law?
Just trying to give you an opportunity to embarrass yourself a little more ...
Vattel’s NBC is a “phrase found in a poorly translated philosophy book”.
As for the Original Intent, see WKA
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html
and the Indiana courts
“Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens.”
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf
You may not LIKE their decision, but it is based on the law, not Vattel and not conspiracy nuts who think Rush, Palin, Coulter and others are a bunch of sell-out traitors!
Is that the poorly book President George Washington never turned back to the library costing thousand$ in late payments???