You really have little clue about what the Framers meant by natural-born if you think this is cut and dried. I say this as one who started from the position that it referred to who ones parents were.
You are not aware of what I know. You would do better to show me arguments in favor of what YOU know, rather than unknowingly denigrate what you think I know.
English law of the time was jus soli, French law was jus sanguinus. Most of the States used jus soli law because English common law was ubiquitous in English colonies. The founders were aware of both systems, and the evidence is that they rejected the jus soli, and adopted jus sanguinus in terms of the national government. That they would have to accept the state's usage of jus soli because it was the common standard, was axiomatic.
The Federals (founders) broke with English law on many points, among them rights for the people, support for the Anglican Church, and the relationship of individuals to their national government.
The Fact is, citizenship by soil imparts no inherent allegiance on the part of the citizen. In a monarchy, this makes no difference because the status of "subject" and "perpetual allegiance" is forced upon the individual through threats of dire punishment. In a Republic that does not claim citizens against their will, merely being born here imparts no sense of loyalty to the nation. That is only imparted by loyal parents who are Americans because they want to be.
You may not see it as cut and dried, but I certainly do, for the above mentioned reasons, and others too lengthy to go into at this time.
What evidence? Where is it? The notion that the Colonists preferred French law over their own law is new to me. Mr. Jefferson wasn't drawing from Rousseau or Voltaire when he drafted the Declaration. The Madison quote clearly shows that he thought soil was at least as important as blood.
FReepers need to see that the whole NBC thing is a red herring. Obama's entire pre-Chicago existence is a FRAUD. He has no legitimate birth certificate he is willing to show. He seems to have a fraudulent Social Security number. No passports. A ghostwritten "autobiography." Yet some want to focus on blood vs soil. The fact is that his mother was a US citizen. His grandparents were US citizens. His British/Kenyan father had ZERO influence on his upbringing; and so if I had to judge his eligibility based upon the supposed intent of Framers who put blood above soil, I would have to say he is eligible.
ML/NJ