Or alternatively, you're not very good at humor or sarcasm. I believe it requires wit or something.
I see. So the English phrase "natural born citizen" was well-understood to mean "born within a country's borders with two citizen parents" in 1787?
The French Phrase, outlined in the 1775 edition of Vattel's Law of Nations, which according to Benjamin Franklin "has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author." was "Les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays, de parens citoyens", which translates into English as " "the natural, or indigenous, are those born in the country,of parents who are citizens", or "Natural born citizens" for short. As most of the founders Spoke, Read, and Wrote French, (they were our allies during the war, you know.) it was not difficult for them to pour through this new blueprint for our nation. This is an image of the cover of the 1758 version of book that Franklin gave to the members of Congress which was reprinted in 1775. It was entirely in French.
So well-understood that the Founders deemed it unnecessary to simply state that the President must be born to two citizen parents? In that case, there must be a wealth of examples of the term being defined that way before 1787.
Actually, there are. Read through this thread and learn how ubiquitous Vattel's "Law of Nations" was during our Founding era. I would have thought you had already read it before you decided to pop off in your ignorance.
And it would mean that US legal textbooks after 1787 would have had no reason to express a differing interpretation.
Some get it right, some get it wrong. British Law influence was pernicious and constant. Here is an example of one that gets it right.
The result of the principal case is to limit the category “natural born” to those who become citizens under the doctrine of jus soli; this makes it co-extensive with the term “native born.” Of importance in this problem is whether these children took the nationality of their parents at common law, for if they are citizens by virtue of their birth and without the aid of statute, then certainly they are “natural born” and not “naturalized” citizens. In most continental European countries the doctrine of jus sanguinis is applied. England follows the same rule, both by virtue of the common law and under a declaratory statute of 1350 guaranteeing such application. As a result, it is generally concluded, despite occasional dissent,” that jus sanguinis was the common law doctrine. (8 1 Willoughby, The Constitution §202 (1922); Flournoy and Hudson, Nationality Laws (1929); Harvard Research in International Law on Nationality, 23 AM. J. INT. L., Spec. Supp. 80 (1929)."
And here is another.
For most purposes, it is not necessary to determine the method by which citizenship has been acquired. But the problem of whether a citizen is natural born or naturalized is important in such areas as denaturalization, expatriation, and qualification for certain offices such as the presidency. (For a discussion of the distinctions made in expatriation, see pp. 739-42 infra.)
When a person is a citizen by jus sanguinis, is he natural born or naturalized? The answer. to this question will determine the applicability of certain expatriation provisions and the citizen’s qualification for the presidency. Some courts, relying on dicta in United States v. Wong Kim Ark equating natural born with native born, have indicated that those who claim citizenship solely by parentage are naturalized citizens. But this conclusion seems opposed to the common law concept -which may be assumed to be written into the constitutional requirements for the presidency -that jus sanguinis confers naturalborn citizenship. (See 5o Mich. L. REV. 926 (1952).)
Wonderful. Every time I think Birthers can't move the goalposts any further, you continue to amaze me.
I have little doubt that you live in a world of amazement.
It wasn't enough to spend three years saying that Obama could end everything by releasing his long-form birth certificate, and then forget that after he released his long-form. Simultaneously, I've seen Birthers argue for years that only a judicial decision could definitely settle the definition of "natural born citizen." Now I see that even a unanimous decision of the U.S. Supreme Court penned by a conservative Chief Justice can't convince Birthers that their armchair legal theories are wrong. You simply declare that the Supreme Court is wrong too. Maybe make up some conspiracy nonsense about the Justices being paid off or threatened, like Birthers have done so many times before.
Why you would think others speak for me, I do not know. As you seem given to false assumptions I must count this as merely another among them. The Birth certificate was merely the first part of this issue. (And I don't think we've seen a REAL ONE yet.) For years, I had heard that Obama was from Kenya. It wasn't until he started running for President that I heard differently, and we were all supposed to disregard what we had heard before? What a silly person you are to believe that we should harken to the latest lie proceeding from that obnoxious mouth. I'll not address your other points. I've already wasted too much of my time attempting to grow you up, and I have wasted too much of your time by trying to keep you from being a little child.
There really is nothing that can convince Birthers that they're wrong. Impossible standards of proof aren't the mark of rational people, you know.
"Nothing" can convince "birthers", and that is exactly what you bring. Nothing evidence, nothing arguments, and nothing but noise. When you get "something" you might try again.