If it was well known to the founders, then what was its definition at the time?
Was it Vattel’s? That seems unlikely given the fact, as Mr Rogers pointed out, that no English translation of Vattel’s work extant at the time the Constitution was drafted contained the phrase “natural born citizen.”
Or was it Blackstone’s? Blackstone’s work, as it existed at the time the Constitution was drafted and ratified, did define the term “natural born subject.” Blackstone was, of course, well-read by and extensively cited by the Founders. John Jay himself was one of the original subscribers.
Replying to trolls serves the purpose of informing others so let's clear up this lie: There were between 1759 and 1834 ten translations of his (Vattel’s) work in England, and from 1796 until 1872 eighteen translations, or reprints of translations, published in the United States.
Vattel was by far the most quoted legal source in pleadings in American cases, by almost a factor of 4, between 1790 and 1820. (Nussbaums Concise History of the Law of Nations, 1962).
Most lawyers and every framer understood Vattel during the Continental Congress and particularly afterword because Vattel served as the principal reference in the writing of the Constitution. Jefferson taught the course on Vattel beginning in 1779 at William and Mary. Madison was President of William and Mary, and future chief justice John Marshall a student. Vattel was used at virtually every college offering legal studies since it is by far the most authoritative source of maritime and international law, in addition to providing the structure for the U.S. government. (Read it. There are a number of sites with the entire text on line and an elegant paper binding by Liberty Fund available from Amazon.)
British common law is law by and for an oligarchy, changed at the will of the crown and privy council. England has no written constitution unless you count the Magna Carta, which most English ignored for five hundred years. The meaning of natural born subject was of particular interest because it defined legal heirs. Changes in the definition usually followed the birth overseas of someone with royal blood. The idea of a Constitutional government was described by Vattel. We are its Guinea pigs, and are seeing its weaknesses.
This nonsense about translations is the usual obot diversion. One of framers, a President between the Revolution and the ratification, Dr. David Ramsay, restated the definition perfectly clearly in an essay after he had returned to his medical practice. It is Vattel’s definition, and there has never been another. (You can find the Ramsay essay in the latest appendix to the Kerchner/Appuzo appeal at http://puzo1.blogspot.com )
Another way to understand “born on the soil of citizen parents” is to consider that the phrase, not a new idea by any means, was assigned to several words early in its history. Vattel could have, and did say, jus soli AND jus sanguinis - from the soil AND from the blood, but appears to have coined the term natural born citizen for clarity and convenience. (There is a lenthy analysis of the origin of the term in an essay by Greshak for which Apusso has a pointer). But it is the meaning that counts, the phrase. The history is clear and our leaders are afraid to impose the constraints upon only our president and vice president that define a Constitutional president.
Since Barack Obama told us that he wanted a new bill of rights and to rewrite the Constitution, he has been true to his word. Obama doesn't care whether or not he is a Constitutional president because he and his regime planned thoroughly so that no legal authority would challenge him. By the time he is finished the Constitution will have even less validity than the window dressing it now provides to some federal cases. With it will fall the 1st and 2nd amendments, which are already under attack. By ignoring his ineligibility we are invalidating the protections guaranteed by the Declaration and the Constitution. He correctly predicted that and is being proved correct.