Yes. When it comes to interpreting the current meaning of law, I always side with the party who's opinion is lawful and legally binding. I am a "Yes" man that way, as are every single judge in the United States. You clearly do not, that's your problem.
Dissenting opinions are important in that they are by definition the LOSING argument, and have been proven wrong. Trying to pretend that the dissenting opinion holds any weight of law is foolish.
The translation that contained the phrase "Natural Born Citizen" in English wasn't published until 1797. So the only way the exact phrase "Natural Born Citizen" could be directly attributed to Vattel would be if Ben Franklin had invented a time machine, and transported himself into the future to get the phrase from the 1797 english translation of Vattel. So all your attempts to pretend that the constitution's "Natural Born Citizen" was a product of Vattel's definition ARE fraudulent.
If you want to quote Vattel in either French or in English the way the founding fathers would have read it, go for it. Just make your point without using the phrase "Natural Born Citizen" when quoting Vattel, because that didn't appear anywhere in print until well AFTER the constitution was penned. Claiming otherwise is fraudulent.