Yes, and the SCOTUS did not agree with you on this issue.
"SO, by applying Vattel's "Natural Born Citizen" definition, using natural law in requiring BOTH parents to be citizens ..."
Vattel didn't HAVE a "Natural Born Citizen" definition.
"By applying Blackstones's "Natural Born Subject" definition, using the common law to recognize the children born "out of the country" of the FATHER (only) as being a "Natural Born Subject" of his FATHER's country ..."
Which is completely meaningless if BO is born IN the US.
> By applying Blackstones’s “Natural Born Subject” definition, using the common law to recognize the children born “out of the country” of the FATHER (only) as being a “Natural Born Subject” of his FATHER’s country
>> Which is completely meaningless if BO is born IN the US.
Perhaps applying CURRENT US statutes and State Dept policy ...
... but NOT in the eyes of the Framers, or the British Crown, both using common law for a British Subject — Barack Hussein Obama SR