And you'd better see post 52.
Post 52 is meaningless. The translation of the French does NOT support NBC, nor was it translated thus until AFTER the Constitution was written.
There were 2 possible sources - Vattel and English common law. The courts have very consistently used English common law, since the analogous phrase ‘natural born subject’ was well know to all the Framers and had a clear definition.
You don’t like that, but you cannot win in court on wishes. And the Supreme Court will not try to throw out a popularly elected President by overturning 150 years of consistent legal interpretation and applying instead a phrase from a book not found until AFTER the Constitution. Your like or dislike is irrelevant. You lost that argument many years before you were born.
You are welcome not to respond, but I will feel free to contradict you in posts. For those whose minds are not closed, I suggest reading the decision of the Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html
A sample:
“The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except insofar as this is done by the affirmative declaration that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” In this as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution...The language of the Constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law...
...The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called “ligealty,” “obedience,” “faith,” or “power” of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King’s allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual — as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem — and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King’s dominions, were not natural-born subjects because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the King.”