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.”
You're saying that because it leads to a very different conclusion than you want, doesn’t it?
I don’t debate Obama supporters/defenders.
there can be little doubt that the Framers of our Constitution considered both Blackstone and Vattel, and they choose Vattel over Blackstone. The Founding Fathers placed into Constitutional concept that the loyalty of a Natural Born Citizen is a loyalty can never be claimed by any foreign political power. The only political power that can exclusively claim the loyalty of a natural born citizen is that power that governs of his birth. Vattel by including the parents and place removes all doubt as to where the loyalties of the natural born citizen ought to lie, as Vattel’s definition removes all claims of another foreign power by blood or by soil, and is the only definition that is in accord with Jay’s letter to Washington.
...nor was it translated thus until AFTER the Constitution was written.
That's why you go to the original.
Continuing...
In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that." And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision. 21 Wall. 167.
Well let's just look at what Chief Justice Waite had to say...
Minor v. Happersett
The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.
I'm no worm and I don't wiggle.