Replies

Oh yeah, and while the Constitution doesn't spell out the definition, and why should it as they knew the definition and the Constitution was never intended to be a dictionary..leaving MANY things within it without subsequent explicit definition, there are many courts cases that specifically refer to Vattel and some even citing his definition of born in country to two citizen parents:

"THE VENUS, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (Marshall, C.J. concurring) (cites Vattel’s definition of Natural Born Citizen)
SHANKS V. DUPONT, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830) (same definition without citing Vattel)
MINOR V. HAPPERSETT, 88 U.S.162,167-168 ( 1875) (same definition without citing Vattel)
EX PARTE REYNOLDS, 1879, 5 Dill., 394, 402 (same definition and cites Vattel)
UNITED STATES V WARD, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D. Cal. 1890) (same definition and cites Vattel.)"
http://www.scribd.com/doc/17519578/Kerchner-v-Obama-Congress-DOC-34-Plaintiffs-Brief-Opposing-Defendants-Motion-to-Dismiss

Attorney Apuzzo has an excellent article on this subject (no pun intended):

"The Law of Nations as U.S. Federal Common Law and Not English Common Law Defines What an Article II "Natural Born Citizen" Is
. "..Founders also understood that even though a child may be born on U.S. soil, if he was born of a British father, the Crown of England owed that child the same protection that it owed the father. Id. at 370-71."

Should the POTUS and Command in Chief be in allegiance of or owed protection from the Crown on England because they are a governed by England? Not a good idea to have a POTUS with dual allegiance, and the framers clearly thought the same. The simplest way to remove such possibilities would be to have someone be eligible who was born to BOTH parents who were citizens of this country...owing no allegiance to another, and therefore when their child is born...that child would therefore not be bound by their parent(s) foreign allegiance or governed by another.