The Founders obviously rejected British citizenship concepts along with their British citizenship. That does not give you an excuse to post lies about Vattel. Please stop posting lies to FreeRepublic.com.
“The Founders obviously rejected British citizenship concepts along with their British citizenship.”
That would explain why our laws so closely match theirs...
So, where is your evidence that US law has citizenship follow paternity?
“The Founders obviously rejected British citizenship concepts along with their British citizenship. That does not give you an excuse to post lies about Vattel. Please stop posting lies to FreeRepublic.com.”
Your problem is with the truth. You desperately want to believe your crank legal theory, so when clues to reality are laid out before you, you have to try and make them go away.
Two or three real courts actually addressed them meaning of “natural born citizen” in eligibility suits. The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California did so by citing an academic paper: Charles Gordon, Who Can Be President of the United States, The Unresolved Enigma, 28 Md. L. Rev. 1, 19 (1968). Right from the top, the paper explains, “It is clear enough that native-born citizens are eligible and that naturalized citizens are not.”
The unanimous opinion of a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals of Indiana was more direct: “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.” [Ankeny v. Daniels]
How do you know that? And even if it were true that the Founders intended to reject "British citizenship concepts," why is that relevant? We care not about intent; we care only about what a reasonable person in 1788 would have understood "natural-born citizen" to have meant.
Would he have defined it based on a specific French-to-English translation of a Swiss legalist's writings? Or would he have defined it much as how "natural-born subject" had been defined in English common law for centuries leading to the ratification?
There's a reason why in Minor Chief Justice Waite resorted to "common law" and not de Vattel to ascertain the meaning of "natural-born citizen."