"The Constitution does not define the phrase natural-born citizen, and various opinions have been offered over time regarding its precise meaning. A 2011 Congressional Research Service report statedThe weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term "natural born" citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship "by birth" or "at birth", either by being born "in" the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship "at birth". Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an "alien" required to go through the legal process of "naturalization" to become a U.S. citizen."
But if we go back to the original intent of the founders then he may not be considered a natural citizen. He clearly does not meet the qualification called for by Vattel (who is known to have had an influence on Benjamin Franklin and George Washington). Washington was even reported to have been reading it during his first day after inauguration.
It doesn't matter if he was an influence on them or not, his book is not the law of the United States. You're a f*cking moron for even dreaming that this is a remotely valid argument.Harsh man harsh.....:(