I don’t even know what point you’re trying to make here. Maybe you could narrow it down a bit? I am very familiar with Emer de Vattel’s law of Nations, book 1 chapter XIX. I don’t need to read it all again.
Vattel repeats that there is little relationship to the place born and natural born, and that is can only be inherited from the father.
It is asked whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens? The laws have decided this question in several countries, and their regulations must be followed.(59) By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights (§ 212); the place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot, of itself, furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him; I say "of itself," for, civil or political laws may, for particular reasons, ordain otherwise.
You may want to read through this paper..
http://www.federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_defined/
To sum up,because I must leave in 5 min...
If you read through that Federalist blog post and were to accept what is says particularly regarding the 14th amendment.
My assertions are no different with one exception. I take into account the equal protection clause that came with the right to vote and legally contract the US constitution now guarantees to women.
In my view, that made Ted’s mother a legal grantee or transferee of her status to her son at birth.