Obviously, their statement didn't mean what you think it meant, because everything else they said is compatible with the historical understanding of natural born citizen.
“Obviously, their statement didn’t mean what you think it meant, because everything else they said is compatible with the historical understanding of natural born citizen.”
No. That’s not true.
Born in country to two citizen parents IS the historical definition of natural born CITIZEN based on Vattel, who the Founders were fully aware of as were Supreme Court Justices, as has been shown to you on any number of occasions.
If you’re trying to force down our throats the English Common Law version of natural born SUBJECT, you are flying in the face of the historical record that the United States was NOT founded on English Common Law as has been shown to you on any number of occasions.
I don’t understand your desire to willfully dilute the definition of natural born Citizen that allows us to get into the exact situation we are in, unless that is your goal.
As I’ve mentioned to you before, until you’re posted to SCOTUS as your final job, your deliberate mis-interpretation of historical record is just as in-valid as everyone elses.
Translation from Jeffese: "Their statement doesn't mean that, because other people who don't know what they are talking about say so."
Argumentum ad populum, ad numerum, and ad ignorantiam .
The Historical understanding of what is an American "natural citizen" doesn't include "natural allegiance" to the English King, which is what the English Common law definition is based on.