But, have you considered:
Isn't it possible that the Constitutional Convention's final Committee of Style agreed upon a specific definition for the "natural born citizen" term and intended that the specific definition be expressly stated in the text of the Constitution?
Isn't it also possible that some East African mole with great foresight somehow induced Jacob Shallus to omit the specific definition from the formal text and that nobody else noticed?
Supporting Evidence: Kenya is in East Africa!
Isn't it possible that the Constitutional Convention's final Committee of Style agreed upon a specific definition for the "natural born citizen" term and intended that the specific definition be expressly stated in the text of the Constitution?
Isn't it also possible that some East African mole with great foresight somehow induced Jacob Shallus to omit the specific definition from the formal text and that nobody else noticed?
Supporting Evidence: Kenya is in East Africa!
Damn. You're right. It all fits together now.
Imagine that. We were wrong all the time.
I have three competing theories on this.
1. Yes they did. They were all in exact agreement as to the meaning of the term.
Corollary a. It was based on Vattel.
Corolllary b. It was based on English Common law.
2. There was no uniform understanding of the term, but everyone believed the others thought exactly like themselves, though there must have been a majority on one side.
3. In actual practice, the English Law theory closely followed the Vattel definition. Alien born children in England may have been called "subjects" but they had very different standards of acceptance within English society than did Subjects born to English Parents. Here is a law passed by William III.
Note the reference to ENGLISH PARENTS being required to hold public office?
The English simply did not grant the same class of citizenship to those born of Alien Parents as those born to English Parents.