Nice essay.
However, I remain skeptical that the case is proven that the FFs would translated french term for a (swiss?) concept without providing a definition or a citation when a compound term and concept from English sources that fits their needs is handy, and the target audience is majority English fluent and French law / Swiss law ignorant.
A quick look at French reveals a usage of the term “citoyen de naissance” which translated is “citizen of birth” and some allege also means “natural born citizen.” If so, why did Vattel use one over the other? Is there some significance to him doing so?
But I come back to my first point which is in so many words that the most straightforward explanation (no French needed) might be the best.
If the Constitution were targeted at a French readership, written in French, and familiar with French/Swiss law, I would be more inclined towards a more arcane argument. What am I missing?
Multiple copies of the French language volume of de Vattel were in heavy usage by French-fluent Franklin and many other Continental Congressmen as early as 1775.
You are missing the fact that we chose Republicanism and eschewed Monarchy. "Subject" is Monarchy. "Citizen" is Republican.
The founders also tossed out "Corruption of Blood", "Debtor's Prison", Official State Religion, and a whole host of other ideas which were incompatible with natural law Republicanism.
Why would we want to hold on to the thing that binds us to the King's allegiance? Allegiance derived from the land is Feudal law. Allegiance derived from the family is natural law.