The much used, abused, and misrepresented quote from Madison actually supports Vattel's Law of Nations, but it is extremely doubtful you could get the naysayers to even attempt an understanding of the historical reasons why this is so.
Vattel is quoted simply because John Jay, the subsequent first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, directly cited it as one source for his request to put the natural born citizen clause into the Constitution. That being so does nothing whatsoever to change the fact that Vattel was reporting upon, explaining, and describing what had already been written about the concept in previous treatises on the Law of Nations and the laws and customs practiced by by the international community in prior centuries. To deny and ridicule the importance of Vattel and his work with respect to defining the meaning of the natural born citizen clause also constitutes a denial and ridicule of the works and histories used to compile his work.
The common law cited is often misrepresents and substitutes British common law for the American common law actually used by the Founding Fathers in their deliberations. Likewise, those who wrongly try to argue that the British common law contradicts Vattel fail to understand the very British common law they are citing or its own origins. I am quite certain this observation will invite the most vitriolic attacks. Nonetheless, those who attack the statement I am also quite certain will be unable to understand and unwilling to acknowledge the historical precedents which support the observation. The misuse of Madison's quotation would seem to support these conclusions.
Please tell me how it supports Vattel for this matter? They appear to have different opinions.
To deny and ridicule the importance of Vattel and his work with respect to defining the meaning of the natural born citizen clause also constitutes a denial and ridicule of the works and histories used to compile his work.
Vattel was an important writer on the law of nations. However, not all nations agreed with every aspect of what he wrote. There were several things in his book you probably wouldn't agree with, such as rulers having the right to give over their subjects as hostages. If you want to consider that denial and ridicule, enjoy.
Likewise, those who wrongly try to argue that the British common law contradicts Vattel fail to understand the very British common law they are citing or its own origins.
Ok, please show how we are misunderstanding English Common Law, that you claim actually agrees with Vattel. And while you're at it, show how Madison's quote doesn't say what it appears to say.