Strange. I've read a lot and that's exactly what I've seen. Here's one: "....‘those children born in the country, of parents who are citizens.’.. (Source: The Law of Nations by Emerich De Vattel, Book 1, c. 19, sec. 212 (c. 1758).
Here's some more (SCOTUS cases which cited the above source by Vattel):
• Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830) – same definition as Vattel.
• Ex parte Reynolds, 1879, 5 Dill., 394, 402 – same definition as Vattel and actually cites Vattel in this case.
• United States v. Ward, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D.Cal. 1890) – same definition as Vattel and actually cites Vattel in this case.
More recently: Senate Resolution 511 which states the following conclusion regarding John McCain qualifying as a 'natural born' citizen: "Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens on an American military base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936: Now, therefore, be it resolved, That John Sidney McCain, III, is a `natural born Citizen' under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States."
And Obama signed it! Notice the plural regarding parents and the notation military base (U.S. soil). Vattel's definition STILL has not changed.
It's not in the Constitution, it's not in the Federalist Papers.
It is in the constitution, 'natural born' was a common definition understood by all at that time exactly as laid down by Emerich de Vattel and Blackstone and that definition as not changed in the last 220 years per Senate Resolution 511 last year.
As per the Federalist papers I've read them too, and yeah its in there. Try the Federalist blog
http://supreme.justia.com/us/28/242/case.html
You either did not read the case or you misunderstood it. Justice Story, who wrote the opinion of the court, does not mention “natural born” anywhere. The only references to “Natural born” are in the opinion of the dissenting judge, Justice Johnson. His opinion sets no precedent because he was in the minority. His opinion failed to convince his fellow judges.
Ex parte Reynolds
The only reference I could find:
Citizenship of the United States, Expatriation, and Protection Abroad, By United States. Dept. of State
This is a murder case, and the defendant claims that he is not under the jurisdiction of federal courts since his wife is an Indian, and the murdered man was married to an Indian - his contention is that therefore he can only be tried in an Indian court. Vattel and his definition are mentioned. The defendant failed to make his case, and let's face it, being married to an Indian doesn't make you an Indian. And there's not much precedent there for qualifications for the Presidency.
United States v. Ward, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D.Cal. 1890)
I have been unable to find a copy of this case on the Internet, therefore I can make no comment on it. Show me where I can read that decision, then I'll have an opinion on it.
The John McCain Resolution does not address the citizenship of someone born in the United States. Saying that x was born outside the United States and is a natural born citizen does not affect the status of Y, who was born within the United States.
As far as the Federalist Papers, since you claim it is in there, can you cite the actual paper number? Help me out in my ignorance.
On second thought you won't find it in the Federalist Papers. You know why? Because if it was in the Federalist Papers everyone on Free Republic would be able to quote it. Rush Limbaugh would be quoting it a minimum of five times a week on his show. The Federalist Papers would be a hot best seller with publishers not able to meet the demand.
So everything hangs on the words of an obscure Swiss philosopher? One not even mentioned in conjunction with the United States Constitution? Wouldn't someone at the Constitutional Convention have put down in writing somewhere, sometime, “We liked the Vattel definition better than the English Common Law definition and that's what we went with.”? I would expect men, lawyers among them, born and raised under English Common Law to use it as a starting point and if they found it wanting they would say so.
I don't think that any of this is going to convince anyone who hasn't already made up their mind.
My opinion is subject to change when someone can produce some proof.