If that were true you would have doubt. That you are so absolutely certain is proof of nothing more than that you are a fool.
If I wasn’t committed to original intent, I would probably be claiming it takes birth on US soil plus two citizen parents to be a natural born citizen.
As your number one cite for this crap is a British Loyalist trained in British law, it's hard to take you seriously when you assert you're interested in Original intent.
Do you have a F*$%#@* clue who was the United State Representative to the Hauge when we were trying to win support for our Revolution from Europe? It was Charles W.F. Dumas, the guy who sent those "Droit des Gens" books to Franklin back in 1775.
Not only that, but John Adams LIVED with Charles W.F. Dumas during his efforts in the Netherlands to win support for our cause. So did Franklin, and Later John Quincy Adams. Franklin exchanged secret messages with Dumas using "Droit des Gens" as their code key!
Dumas was very instrumental in winning support for us from Europe, and he even became eventually our paid agent in Europe!
Heh. Are you now admitting that you have doubts about your own theory? Or are you confessing to being a fool?
Which is it? Because according to your own statement, above, it has to be one or the other.
As for me, I've spent the last couple of years basing my conclusions on the evidence, rather than on some theory of what I think natural born citizenship ought to be, and then trying to cram history and law into my theory. So I've been open to changing my mind at any point.
Except now, it's hard to believe there's anything terribly important about the subject that I haven't read. I've presented here tons of evidence from early authorities that confirm the historical understanding of natural born citizenship, and say that your theory couldn't possibly be more wrong.
I've also looked at literally dozens of claims from you and other Constitution-twisters here claiming to support your theory. Virtually all of these are just plain fallacy and BS. A very few provide weak support for the theory, which is completely overwhelmed by better evidence. Ramsay and Samuel Roberts are good examples of these.
Dumas was very instrumental in winning support for us from Europe, and he even became eventually our paid agent in Europe!
You say that as if it were in some way important.
Dumas was an influential American in the Netherlands!
He sent Ben Franklin 3 copies of Vattel's book!
Ben Franklin said thank you!
He also said that since Vattel had some good things to say about international relations between nations, and international law, he would probably consult the book frequently!
That means it takes birth on US soil PLUS citizen parents to make a natural born citizen!
You might try adding a couple of explanation marks to each sentence. Having three exclamation marks, instead of just one, will undoubtedly make your argument more convincing.
Oh - and don't forget to accuse anyone who debunks your BS of "lying." Or of being "paid."