I don't need Vattel, English Common Law or any esoteric historical citations to argue the two-parent citizen paradigm. All that's needed is a simple exercise in logic with the founders' concerns about divided loyalties as its starting point:
Of the two, which logically is to be presumed to be apt to have a stronger sense of loyalty to one's country, a person born of two citizen parents, or one with a father who never had any allegiance whatsoever to said country?
I believe what we're witnessing under an "Obama" pResidency serves as a perfect illustration of the realization of the founders' fears regarding divided loyalties in the CIN of our armed forces.
Kansas is working for someone’s benefit... no doubt.