[Abd al-Rahiim]

No worries.

I and many others that our Founding Fathers had Vattel in mind as the definitive source of “natural born”.

Your argument that a specific English translation of de Vattel defines NBC in the Constitution isn't new; it dates back to 1844, if not even earlier.

I find Vice Chancellor Sandford's argument in Lynch to be persuasive:

The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since.

...

Moreover, the absence of any avowal or expression in the constitution, of a design to affect the existing law of the country on this subject, is conclusive against the existence of such design. It is inconceivable that the representatives of the thirteen sovereign states, assembled in convention for the purpose of framing a confederation and union for national purposes, should have intended to subvert the long established rule of law governing their constituents on a question of such great moment to them all, without solemnly providing for the change in the constitution; still more that they should have come to that conclusion without even once declaring their object.

In fact when Vattel defines “natural born citizens” in the second sentence of section 212...

But de Vattel DID NOT define "natural-born citizen"! Those aren't his words! They are ONE WAY to translate that sentence. Chief Justice Marshall himself did not use that translation in The Venus (1814), even though it was available. Moreover, as djf pointed out in the opening post, Fenwick simply translated it as "The natives..." in 1916.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

I find John Jay to be persuasive myself [post 262].

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

Furthur, who has the burden of establishing qualification?

The candidate. The state. The voter.

And then the courts I suppose can review whether those qualifications were established, although I personally think it is dangerous for the courts to have so much power.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

“But de Vattel DID NOT define “natural-born citizen”! Those aren’t his words! They are ONE WAY to translate that sentence.”

But Vattel also uses the word, “Indigenes”. Did he not make a personal distinction between the two?