Vattel based his treatise on the evvolving civil law of Europe, based in Roman law and eventually codified under Napoleon.
The Founders based the Constitution not on Roman law, but on English common law. The relevant treatise is that of Blackstone, under which every person born within the state is a subject of the King and by extension a citizen of the USA.
Your theory requires that there be three categories of US citizen: native-born but not natural born and therefore not eligible to be a US president; natural born; naturalized. In actual fact the Supreme Court and US law have always recognized only two: native (natural) born and naturalized. If Obama was born in HI he's native-born and eligible to be President.
That he's never presented definitive evidence he was born there is an entirely different subject.
Wrong-O.
You say that there are three conditions to be a citizen.
Okay.
However,I was born in the United States to two British subjects,hence,not elegible to be POTUS,due to conflicting, or dual-citizenship.
B-HO was born to a British subject, and a minor.
So, no natural born.
The Supreme Court has never taken up the subject of Natural-Born citizens.
Yes,some of our laws were based on English Common Law,but
not citizenship.
British subjects were called subjects because they were,in fact,subjects,not citizens.
The concept of free men was wholly unknown to the British Crown.
That’s why we broke away from them in the first place.
If you desire to acquire more Knowlege about the subject,I urge you to consult Hillsdale College’s periodical Imprimus.
Archive:”Birthright Citizenship and Dual Citizenship:Harbingers of Administrative Tyranny. 7/2008
Get back to me if you read it.
“The common law of England is not the common law of these States.” —George Mason
What Natural-Born Citizen Could Not Mean
Could a natural-born citizen simply mean citizenship due to place of birth?
Unlikely because we know one can be native born and yet not a native born citizen of this country prior to the year 1866. There were even disputes whether anyone born within the District of Columbia or in the territories were born citizens of the United States (they were referred to as “inhabitants” instead.) National Government could make no “territorial allegiance” demands within the several States because as Madison explained it, the “powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.”
Fourteenth Amendment
Whatever might had been the correct understanding of “natural-born citizen” prior to 1866, the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment certainly changes the view because for the first time we have a written national rule declaring who are citizens through birth or naturalization. Who may be born citizens is conditional upon being born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States - a condition not required under the common law. The legislative definition of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was defined as “Not owing allegiance to anybody else.”
This national rule prevents us from interpreting natural-born citizen under common law rules because it eliminates the possibility of a child being born with more than one allegiance.
Natural-Born Citizen Defined
One universal point most all early publicists agreed on was natural-born citizen must mean one who is a citizen by no act of law. If a person owes their citizenship to some act of law (naturalization for example), they cannot be considered a natural-born citizen. This leads us to defining natural-born citizen under the laws of nature - laws the founders recognized and embraced.
Under the laws of nature, every child born requires no act of law to establish the fact the child inherits through nature his/her father’s citizenship as well as his name (or even his property) through birth. This law of nature is also recognized by law of nations. Sen. Howard said the citizenship clause under the Fourteenth Amendment was by virtue of “natural law and national law.”