That is actually a reasonable assertion. It is possible that some people believed the intent was to follow the Common Law rule, and others believed the intent was to follow the Natural Law rule of Vattel. The possibility exists that they all thought everyone else believed as did they, and so therefore the matter did not need to be discussed.
But it cannot be reasonably argued that many delegates did not follow the Natural Law rule. We have too many examples of people (such as Franklin, Wilson, Armstrong, Marshall, etc) who clearly followed the Vattel rule.
As I've pointed out, the term "natural born" was prior to the Convention a term in English usage associated solely with England and the common law.
And as I've pointed out, the two words "natural born" are adjective modifiers of the noun "citizen" which does not appear to be defined in any English Law books that I have seen from the era, and indeed appears to come from Natural law as informed by Swiss Republic philosophers.
The noun determines the meaning, not the adjectives. Didn't you learn basic English? Perhaps you need to quit worrying about English Law and get yourself a refresher course on English Grammar.
Your pretensions notwithstanding, use of the term "citizen" doesn't lead inexorably to Vattel.
You have certainly not demonstrated that it leads anywhere else, and certainly not back to English Common law. I can't find it in any of those old English Law books, remember?
Your two examples of it being used by Natural Law philosophers are both Swiss. :)
After looking ahead to your next bit of bitchiness, I think i'll just pass. Slapping your childish pansy ass is fun for awhile, but now it's starting to get boring again.
Prof. Ramsey states it correctly, as these discussions here have amply born out:
Vattel might be thought to have a closer connection to the eligibility clause's text and context. . . . . The weight of the evidence, however, points strongly in the other direction. First, any connection between Vattel and the eligibility clause is pure speculation. Apparently no one at the time made the connection, or at least there is no surviving record if they did. To be sure, some individuals might have done so. But it seems clear - “ as clear as we can be about these matters - that no widespread public connection was drawn.
Yes, some may have held to more not-English viewpoint. But insofar as they did, they didn't make that clear of record. And those that are on record appear by the far greater weight of evidence to have favored the English view.
It can reasonably argued that neither Franklin, Wilson, Armstrong nor Marshall) support your view. The ONLY clear source you have is the obscure Samuel Roberts. The rest of these are simply your naked assertion they support you. But you fail to demonstrate that any of them asserted "citizen father" was prerequisite for a child born here to be a citizen at birth.
The noun determines the meaning, not the adjectives.
The adjective in this case ("natural born") signifies the source and rule by which that noun "citizen" occurs. Again, you're back to your same "joined at the hip" fallacy of acting like they simply couldn't take the English common law rule they knew and apply it using a term more fitting to members of republican government. But they could. And that's what they did.
You have certainly not demonstrated that it leads anywhere else, and certainly not back to English Common law.
It's not my burden of proof. It's yours. You are the one making the extraordinary claim that EVERYONE has missed the point that Jefferson's use of "citizen" in the Declaration was taken directly from Vattel. My contention is that Jefferson drew upon multiple sources, and so given attribution to a single source without compelling evidence is futile.
To make that demonstration, YOU would need to show 1) how Jefferson defined "citizen" in the Declaration and 2) that defined as such it matches Vattel sufficiently distinctly to mark Vattel as the origin. You haven't even attempted. You just claim Vattel was "influential." Big deal. So were many other sources.
and indeed appears to come from Natural law as informed by Swiss Republic philosophers.
And it just COULDN'T be that "citizen" comes simply from Jefferson's knowledge of France or his reading of works of classical antiquity. Jefferson's Reading List. Your argument is pure stupidity born of a tunnel vision approach that sees Jefferson as having read Vattel and little else.