I beg to differ. English common law, as stated by Blackstone and other 18th century authorities, followed the jus solis, under which anyone born in England was a natural-born subject even if both parents were aliens. Vatel's Law of Nations takes a different view, but that is (as the title itself makes clear) because Vatel's book was about European law, not English common law. The U.S. Constitution has always been interpreted in light of the common law.
The U.S. Supreme Court has never decided a case about a presidential candidate's eligibility under the Natural Born Citizen clause, but there are statements in many Supreme Court cases (Wong Kim Ark v. United States is only one example) that there are only two kinds of U.S. citizens-- natural born and naturalized. That would mean that someone born in the U.S. is a natural born citizen.
Most importantly, from a practical point of view: Obama has always stated that his father was not a U.S. citizen. When he ran for president, no one-- no primary opponent, no general election opponent, no member of Congress from either party, no election official in any state, no judge, no law professor-- ever suggested that this disqualified him from office. So there is no way in hell any court is going to undo an election based on the theory that facts Obama publicly disclosed before the election disqualify him. (Proof that he wasn't born in the U.S. might be a different matter, but his non-citizen father-- no way.)
Wong Kim is not about “naturalized” citizens, it is about the status of children born of aliens on U.S. soil. Here is the quotation:
The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: The fourteenth amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens…Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate…and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, ‘If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen…’
The statement is differentiating citizens from natural born citizens, but asserting that the child born of aliens on U.S. soil is a much a citizen as natural born citizens are citizen. That natural born citizens are citizens is a tautology. The statement says nothing about naturalized citizens.
Again, this is an issue both Donofrio and Appuzo have analyzed extensively, though I find a disturbing number of statements by academics which misstate the point. I supposed we are seeing the difference between original interpretation and the constitution as a living document. But if precedence ceases to have meaning, so does The Constitution.
One of the more shocking examples is in an otherwise informative article in WorldandI referred to by Donofrio
where Nancy Salvato, claims that Title 8, Section 1401 defines natural born citizenship. What is insidious is that she quotes a number excellent sources, properly, and then arrives at what I suspect was her intended conclusion by misquoting just the title of 1401, which is “§ 1401. Nationals and citizens of United States at birth” . Her statement is “Title 8, Section 1401, of the U.S. Code provides the current definition for a natural-born citizen.” which conveniently makes Barack a natural born citizen.