[DiogenesLamp]

I’ve traveled for work to other countries. I find the concept of my child being born a month earlier or later, corresponding to US or foreign soil, would change her status of being able to be president silly.

Some would argue that the entire requirement is silly, but nevertheless that's where they drew the line.

Congress attempted to address the issue in 1790 with the "naturalization act of 1790", and Vattel addressed it even earlier than that. I personally think that being born in a Foreign country is no bar to serving.

I find no evidence in the writing of the Founding Fathers thought that way as well. Children of ambassadors and military born overseas would have the same standings as children born in the US.

If Vattel is the Authority upon which Article II is based, then the Children born of American Parents in foreign countries in the service of our nation, are indeed "natural born citizens."

If you can show me where in the Constitution it defines Natural Born citizen, then we can hold it above the congressional law.

If you can show me where "Arms" are defined in the Constitution, then we can hold it above congressional law. But if you can't, then congress can ban anything it wants, right? Isn't that your reasoning?

Otherwise, the Constitution set up the powers of Congress to make applicable law.

Which means they can ban any weapon they want to, they can ban any speech (remember, it's not defined in the constitution) they want to, and they can pretty much do anything they want to.

I wouldn't want to live under a government which operated by your theory. You wouldn't either, but you certainly need to ponder how your argument works to their advantage.

[thackney]

"naturalization act of 1790" That would be an act by Congress. You have stated they have no ability in defining Natural Born Citizen. If that is an acceptable method to define, then go to my previous statements.

You want to add requirements that don't exist in the constitution or in law. As you said before it is axiomatic.