I have only one thing to say to you:
"Les naturels, ou indigines, sont ceux qui sont nés dans le pays, de parents citoyens."
Actually, I've read enough of this baloney to agree with you that there were some very important people back then who apparently looked to Vattel for guidance regarding theories of citizenship. But, I also know that many of these guys were lawyers of great ability with years of drafting experience. So, I know that:
When these guys wanted to avoid ambiguity or uncertainty, they knew how to do so.
When, instead, they wanted to delegate some discretion (wiggle) room to future decision makers, they knew how to do that, too.
The kind of fellow who had heard of Vattel and who was actually reading Vattel knew enough about politicians to know that, if it was felt to be really important to strictly bind future politicians (electors) to a definition as precise as native birth to two citizen parents, then it would be important and necessary to draft appropriately precise and binding instructions. Whether by intention or inadvertence, the Constitution includes a term without contours or boundaries as specific as Vattel might have prescribed. I think it would be unfair to the ordinary citizen of that time to just assume that any one precise definition of natural born citizen would have been obvious or commonplace.
Obviously, there are two competing interests at stake here. The first is that we want a president who is "one of us" in that he or she has a close connection to the country by heritage and by experience. The second is that we don't want to limit our pool of candidates any more than is really necessary. I think that the Constitution provides electors with some discretion in striking an appropriate balance between these competing interests.
I think the Constitution affords to this generation the liberty to choose Ted Cruz, a citizen at birth, as our president. I'm confident that if the public perceives that either his birthplace or his father presents a substantial danger, the public will simply choose someone else.
I have only one thing to say to you: "Les naturels, ou indigines, sont ceux qui sont nés dans le pays, de parents citoyens."
Yes, the language is French, and much has been made of the fact that it isn't English, but let me ask you this. Which is more important, the language, or the principles?
We KNOW what were the English Principles. That a man is born owing eternal allegiance and servitude to the King. The language is familiar, but it is this PRINCIPLE which is FOREIGN to the American form of Government.
But what of Republicanism? Where were the examples of it? What nation was represented by a Republican form of government at this time in History? Only one, and that nation was Switzerland. It too was founded on Rebellion against a Monarchy.
If we wished to follow Monarchy, we could easily have looked to the English Model, but we chose to follow the path of a Free Republic, and so we looked for guidance from a writer who hailed from the only Nation on Earth which was an independent Republic. Of COURSE the ideas of Vattel would have to come from Switzerland. Everything else was Monarchy.
The language the ideas were written in was French because French was the language of Diplomacy. Vattel intended a wide distribution for his Principles of Natural Law, and to accomplish this, it needed to be written in French.
The question is, did we chose principles of Freedom and Republicanism written in a foreign language, or did we chose familiar principles of Monarchical Servitude written in our own language?