In interpreting this text, we are guided by the principle that "[t]he Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning." . . . Normal meaning may of course include an idiomatic meaning, but it excludes secret or technical meanings that would not have been known to ordinary citizens in the founding generation.
I would argue that it is much more likely that "ordinary citizens" would have understood "natural born citizen" as referring to something like the British common law concept of "natural born subject, rather than to the work of a Swiss legal theorist. Have you any evidence suggesting that Vattel's work was "known to ordinary citizens in the founding generation"?
Oh, but I think that it’s relevant and a fascinating piece of history.
Chester Arthur excluded. There are doubts about the “everyone” knew theory, there hasn’t been a ONE, since Barry.
Yes. There is evidence that Vattel's work was "celebrated" as "genius" nearly a quarter of a century prior to the penning of the Constitution.
The framers thought it an important enough legal treatise that they openly read and referenced his work during the Constitutional Convention itself.
The "father" of the Constitution, and the "father" of the bill of rights...reject any notion that England's common law was the common law of the U.S.
See their writings of October 18, 1787 and June 18, 1788.
Furthermore, had we taken their common law after fighting the Revolutionary War against them, instead of creating our own common law based in large part on the principles found in the laws of nature, Arnold Schwarzenegger would be POTUS eligible.