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.
So Vattel, writing on a Continent utterly dominated by absolutist monarchies, was chosen by the Founders for their definition of citizenship as opposed to Blackstone, writing abput the genuinely although imperfectly free common law.
The British monarchy of the late 18th century was light-years ahead of any continental government when it came to freedom for its subjects.
The Supreme Court, in several of its cases, while it did not specifically define “natural born,” most certainly did not split the “born in the USA” contingent into two groups, as you would like to do. In fact, in one of these decisions the dissenters argued against recognizing citizenship to a Chinese man born here to Chinese citizen parents, partially on the basis that this might result in such a man being eligible to be president. The majority decision went against them, implicitly recognizing that he would indeed be eligible for this honor.
I challenge you to find any offical ruling, stature or decision that recognizes three categories of citizenship rather than two.
I’ll read your article from Hillsdale to see if they bring anything new to the table.