[Non-Sequitur]

I don’t know why people say that the Constitution didn’t determine what the term "Natural Born Citizen" meant. It did and quite clearly.

Where does the Constitution do that? Not Vattel. Not British Common Law. But where does the Constitution itself define natural born citizen?

[brityank]

Where does the Constitution do that? Not Vattel. Not British Common Law. But where does the Constitution itself define natural born citizen?

You're right; I apologise for the mistake. I meant that the Constitution does show that Madison et al did show, by the phrasing they used, that they intended to show that there is a distinction based on Vattel's 'Law of Nations' Chapter XIX Section 212 - to wit:

The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.

As we found out from our last Impeached President, it does appear that some lawyers can be educated beyond their intelligence - otherwise every jot and tittle would require a dictionary definition included in the documentation.

As I said: There are only five instances in the Constitution detailing "citizen". Only ONE has any specified qualification: they made a clear distinction between "natural born citizen" and "citizen" in this clause. That phrase only leads to Vattel for its base determination.