You are making it way more difficult than it needs to be.
Vattel is giving a definition.
If you walked up to Vattel and asked “Who is/are a natural?” he would have said those who are born in the country of citizen parents.
I IS NOT coincidence that the writers of the Constitution used the word “Natural”.
Unless you can show SOME OTHER INTERPRETATION OR REFERENCE as to what the founders meant when they used that word, the only reliable reference/meaning we have is Vattels definition.
Neither Vattel or the founders gave a rats rear end about what Waite said. No legislation or court decisions can change the intent of the founders.
I never said it was. My position is that "natural-born citizen" was to be understood in the context of "common law." My position is well supported by Supreme Court jurisprudence. (Though arguably dicta, even WhiskeyX acknowledges that dicta are "authoritative" by definition.) Yours is not. Moreover, your position relies on a ridiculous trick that I can use to show that de Vattel actually referred to "native born citizens." And Leo Donofrio has repeatedly argued that "native born" is different from "natural born," so no luck there, djf.
Unless you can show SOME OTHER INTERPRETATION OR REFERENCE as to what the founders meant when they used that word, the only reliable reference/meaning we have is Vattels definition.
I love this tactic. You can't argue against my source, so you demand that I give you another reference that corroborates it. I won't play this game, as I don't consider the tactic valid. You can't just dismiss evidence that you don't like. I have not done that in this thread. Instead, I have done justice to my teachers and examined sources as I was given them. I found out, for example, that AmericanVictory's claim that The Venus defined "natural-born citizen" was patently false, as Chief Justice Marshall's translation did not use the phrase, and moreover, the phrase doesn't appear at all in any of the opinions.