As to the constitutional meaning of Article II, Section 1, your position unsubstantiated.
Vattel writes:
CHAP. XIX. OF OUR NATIVE COUNTRY, AND SEVERAL THINGS THAT RELATE TO IT.
§ 212. Citizens and natives.
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.
There is much more you can find on the constitutional definition of "natural born citizen" if you care to understand.
Start with John Jay's letter to George Washington dated July 25, 1787 which is widely understood to be the basis for the constitutional language, and go from there.
Let me know if you need any help. I'd be glad to point you to some references.
Ho, ho, ho.
Dragging in French Swiss legal theorist as if his opinion has some applicability to American law! (See my tagline.)
Vattel is recounting civil or Roman law, which forms the basis of the Napoleonic code and that of most European countries. Under this law system citizenship is a matter of inheritance, not birth.
The law codes of the US are based on English common law. Blackstone is the great commentator there, and he disagrees flatly with Vattel.
The Supreme Court, in several decisions, considered and rejected Vattel’s civil law basis for determining citizenship and adopted Blackstone’s common law approach. This is especially so since the adoption of the 14th amendment.
So far, I’ve posted opinions from US attorneys general and decisions of the Supreme Court. You’ve posted comments in letters from Founders and commentary from obscure foreign legal philosophers.
You need to find some more effective ammo, dude.
BTW, it sounds like our present Supreme Court agrees with me. They don’t see a legal issue in this case.