“someone responded with Minor v. Happersett, which defined “natural born citizen” in the same way Vattel defines “native”: born within the country to parents both of whom were citizens”
What Minor says regarding NBC:
“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 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.”
If Georgia decides to use Minor to ban Obama from the ballot, Georgia will have its butt handed to it by the federal courts.
Perhaps, but even then something will be gained: an actual definition of the phrase "natural born citizen". And it will be interesting to read the "reasoning" by which a Federal court taking the position you suggest overturns the definition given in Minor to give a different definition of the phrase.
Two citizen parents and born on US soil. Or put another way, to be a natural born citizen; one must have 2 parents who, at the time of the birth in question, are citizens of the United States. Obama's own evidence proves he was born a dual national US/UK, so he fails constitutional eligibility and is therefore ineligible to serve as President.