The first Congress, made up of many of our founders, wrote in the Naturalization Act of 1790 that citizens born overseas of citizen parents were natural born citizens.
And they immediately said thereafter that not even BASIC CITIZENSHIP of ANY SORT shall be given to the children of Fathers who were not residents in this country.
They SPECIFICALLY said the children born of foreign fathers are OUT! NOT EVEN CITIZENS!
While that comports with the “two citizen parents” requirement of the post 2008 popular definition - it certainly doesn't comport with the “born in country” requirement.
I have long regarded it as evidence that the First Congress didn't care where the children were born, but they were absolutely insistent that the child have an American Father. I interpret this to mean that "Jus Sanguinus" was the standard, and that "Jus Soli" is irrelevant.
Prior to the election this was not a well known or popular definition of “natural born citizen” - most eligibility debates focused on the dual citizenship angle - or the authenticity of the Hawaii abstract COLB.
Most debate focused on people's false understanding of the meaning of the 14th amendment which many people mistakenly thought trumped and repealed Article II. It did not. The ignorance of people is no excuse to baring the admission of the actual facts, whether they be made known to some people before or after the election.
Now, of course, we have people claiming that they learned this in grade school - but were somehow conveniently forgetful of that fact until sometime after the election in 2008.
Nobody gave a crap until it was too close to the election to do anything about it. I don't know about you, but I wasn't wasting my time chatting people up on the Internet. I was out campaigning and working to defeat that incompetent fool who may represents the IDIOT Democrats perfectly, but who is the bumbling destroyer of our nation. If you had time to discuss this crap then you were goofing off on the sidelines. (Or more like trying to help the idiot, as you are now.) McCain should have challenged him, but McCain was too much of a Gentleman to point out what an incompetent nitwit Barack was, let alone challenge his eligibility.
Ridiculous and out of context, of course, as Vattel said children of soldiers serving overseas were defacto born in country - but there we have it.
But you seemed to have conveniently glossed over that the definition you said was somehow axiomatic and known to the founders was immediately contradicted when they completely ignored the supposed requirement of being born in country.
So the definition that supposedly the founders followed wasn't followed.
The definition that supposedly everyone should know - nobody did.
That people now try to claim that anybody who didn't always subscribe to said definition is either a traitor or a dupe just shows the depths of idiocy and historic revisionism necessary towards being a birther.
We have ALWAYS been at war with EASTASIA!!!!