“So, we have two individuals...”
So, off the top of my head I named two individuals. Do you really expect me to go back and name them all? By the way, I’m still waiting on your response to my question about naming people who did NOT.
“...did either of those two claim that we must confine...”
I don’t know about you, but if there’s a definition of a word or term, don’t you have to “confine” your interpretation to that definition? It used to be that way back in the day, but, if you live in the world of liberalspeak where we live now, there is no specific definition to any word or term. Words just mean what you want them to mean at the time you use them. It doesn’t really matter what the definition of “is” is.
“So, I guess the fact that we have a sitting president who does not conform to what you claim would have been Vattel’s definition of “natural born citizen” is what is.”
Yes, and you see the results. Doesn’t mean that we can’t try to change it.
” He’s an American citizen and I know of nothing that he’s done to suggest that he feels that he owes Canada any taxes, any allegiance, any loyalty, or anything at all.”
Well, as long as you “feel” that he “feels” that that way, I guess that’s all that really matters.
I encourage everyone to develop his own views and to present as effectively as he can his NBC pitch to the voters/electors, the folks who select our presidents. It's obviously an important issue.
Good luck. ;-)