[Red Steel]

So... you still can't find a single example of where anybody ever connected the phrase "natural born citizenship" with de Vattel until ten years too late.

There is no need to look. No one is buying your views here. And however, your "ten years too late" nonsense does not include the 1792 version that BP2 showed you before and is re-shown below, which is only about 1 year of the last ratification of the US Constitution by the state(s). You haven't dented The plain text or the meaning and intent behind the 'natural born citizen' clause that is written in the US Constitution.

Thanks for playing.

LoL...you're no closer to proving your points than Obama is to being a natural born citizen.

[EnderWiggins]

"There is no need to look."

That's okay. You could have looked all you wanted. You would have found nothing, because not a single framer of the Constitution ever once referred to de Vattel when defining citizenship in general or natural born in particular. Glad to see that you understand that. Madisons's contradiction of de Vattel stands unchallenged.

I love, by the way, the fact that you keep posting that 2nd Amendment & de Vattel reference. You are so certain that de Vattel was great influence on the Constitution, and yet the only example you post is one where the Framers completely rejected de Vattel's opinion on the right to bear arms and wrote something completely different into the Constitution.

I'm curious as to why you would use an example that proves de Vattel's influence on the Constitution was... not so much.