Which is why you don't bring it up in a discussion *ABOUT* the "natural born citizen" requirement.
It did NOT exempt them from the imaginary two citizen parent requirement which is NOT mentioned in either the grandfather clause or the requirements clause.
I have already explained to you that it was only the father that mattered, and I have given you an example (the naturalization acts of the 1790s) which illustrate that *ONLY* the father mattered regarding citizenship.
Somehow it seems as if you aren't understanding what I am saying, and it makes me wonder if you are okay? Despite our differences on this issue, I see you as a FRiend and Ally, and this seeming inability to understand what I have said is worrisome.
I have already explained to you that it was only the father that mattered, and I have given you an example (the naturalization acts of the 1790s) which illustrate that *ONLY* the father mattered regarding citizenship.
You have previously explained your insanity. What you do not explain is how your insanity takes precedent over the 14th amendment of the Constitution or the Supreme Court precedents, beginning with Wong Kim Ark.
Just because you have your personal opinion, supported only by your own insanity, does not convert your irrational claims into law.
Were anything prior to 14A to be in conflict with 14A in any way, it is overridden by 14A. No statute will ever override a constitutional provision. The more recent Supreme Court holding sets precedent over older inconsistent Supreme Court holdings. A Supreme Court interpretation of a constitutional provision can only be overridden by another Supreme Court holding, or by a constitutional amendment.
Attributing irrational, insane claims to real legislation does not create birther law.
Vattel is irrelevant to United States citizenship law.