Your "johnny come lately post election definition" claim is a falsehood. The issue was debated throughout McCain's candidacy and before he was nominated as a candidate. All of this discussion culminated with the Congress passing a resolution acknowledging, rightly or wrongly, McCain's eligibility to the Office of the President.
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.
Nonetheless, the issue and the debate resurfaced with every war. It required a special act of Congress to bring the children of U.S. soldiers from Korea to the United States when their mother was Korean. Likewise with WWII and the children of those veterans. The complexities of the immigration and naturalization laws are being made ever more complex and sometimes conflict. This all stems from contradictory decisions from the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) and the efforts to the Democrats to enable illegal immigration along with legal immigration.
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.
Given that the parties to the debates often vigorously disputed each other over the "in country" attributes, no credence can be given to your false notion that the issue was somehow "completely ignored" when in fact is strongly disputed.
So the definition that supposedly the founders followed wasn't followed.
The definition that supposedly everyone should know - nobody did.
Since the definition was vigorously debated, those are false statements.
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.
Given the false statements and false accusations you make and the attempts to ridicule and defame anyone who defends the Constitution's natural born citizen clause, it is clearly evident from your own statements that it is yourself who is engaging in "historic revisionism" and other commentary inconsistent with Conservative principles. It is quite possible to disagree on certain issues of certain points without subverting the Constitution, the principles of the Constitution, and its defenders. Unfortunately, you have chosen to attack the defenders of the Constitution in a manner like the trolls who seek to defame Conservatives and subvert the Constitution and the Rule of Law fundamental to a Republic of sovereign individuals.
There was enormous effort expended about eligibility during the election - and yet not once did I hear the Vattel definition that apparently you are a traitor to the Constitution unless you got it with your mothers milk and believed it always - even if you never heard it until after the election in 2008.
When did you become a convert to the Vattel definition and express the same here on Free Republic?