Re Vattel. It is true, they did read Vattel. HOWEVER, they read a lot of other books too. Vattel was an expert on International Law, elections and the eligibility of candidates are DOMESTIC Law. Vattel recommended several things that we did not follow, such as every country having its own state religion and forcing people to join it or force them to leave the country. So, duh, just the fact that they READ Vattel does not mean that they used Vattel in the definition of Natural Born Citizen.<quoted text>lHey right back at ya'. Per Vattel's treatise "The Law ofNations" of 1758AD, which was repeatedly referred to by our Founding Fathers when drafting our Constitution, a 'natural-born citizen' is "born in the country of parents who are citizens of that country". Also see definition cited by Supreme Court Justice Peter V. Daniel in the Dred Scot case which is verbatim the exact same definition. Kenyan-born Obama IS the Antichrist. So get saved now while there is still time!
IF the writers of the Constitution had used Vattel, they would have SAID that they used Vattel, but they never did---not one of them. And, in fact, Vattel is not even mentioned once in the Federalist Papers, while the common law is mentioned about twenty times. John Jay, who first mentioned Natural Born Citizen in his letter to George Washington, was a specialist in THE COMMON LAW. So, duh, he also would have said that he was using Vattel, IF he had used Vattel. And, finally, we have the quotations from the AMERICAN legal scholars of the time that the Constitution was written, and they used the term Natural Born Citizen just the way that Natural Born Subject was used in the common law.
"Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it. The first, by their birth-right, became entitled to all the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to none, but such as were held out and given by the laws of the respective states prior to their emigration....St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE'S COMMENTARIES: WITH NOTES OF REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA.(1803)
(As you can see, that refers ONLY to the place of birth, not to the parents.)
"Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity."---William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed.(1829)
(As you can see, Rawle, who was friends with both Washington and Franklin and knew many of the writers of the US Constitution, says that EVERY child born in the USA is a Natural Born Citizen. That is exactly what the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court case ruled, six to two [one justice did not vote].)
Re "born in Kenya."
That is a totally loony myth. Did you know that only 21 people came to the USA from Kenya in 1961, and that all but one of them came by SHIP (and the one that came by air was not a US citizen). And did you know that there were no regular ships from Kenya to Hawaii in 1961?
The “born in Kenya” story is the height of the loony side of the birther movement. It is based on forgeries like that of Lucas D. Smith, and falsifications–such as the claim that Obama’s Kenyan grandmother said that he was born in Kenya—when she actually said right on the same tape that he was born IN HAWAII, and she said in another interview that the first that her family in Kenya had heard of Obama’s birth was in a letter FROM HAWAII.