The Law of Nations, from which the eligibility standard stated in the U. S. Constitution is derived, specifies that both parents be citizens of the nation at issue, and gives the reasons for same, namely, to avoid divided national loyalties in a person being considered for elevation to the monarchy (i.e., king or emperor) of a nation. The term “natural born citizen” is applied in the present instance applied to the office of chief executive of our constitutional republic, and by the same means seeks to avoid said divided loyalty. Obama’s sense of national loyalty appears to be multi-faceted, at best, much inclined toward placing the U. S. Constitution in an inferior position vis-a-vis the rules and regulations adopted by the United Nations Organization, for one example.
That the “natural born citizen” standard may have been overlooked in the case of Agnew does not render it moot, merely shows that it was not accorded the respectful consideration it deserves as a Constitutional requirement.
And your proof of this is where? Much of the Constitution and early American law is based on English Common Law. James Madison, father of the Constitution, did not agree with Vattel.
It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.
“The Law of Nations, from which the eligibility standard stated in the U. S. Constitution is derived...”
The US Supreme Court says the meaning is found in English common law. Not an edition of Vattel published 10 years after the Constitution was written. But then, US law doesn’t follow Vattel on citizenship, or everything would depend on our parent’s status.