Who cares about the "birthers"? Natural Born Citizen defined

It seems the "birther" conspiracy theorists have gone into stealth mode--much like Paris Hilton. You just don't hear much about their cause anymore. I was intrigued by some of the evidence they presented, but ultimately, Obama's birthplace would appear to be irrelevant. Much more important to the Constitutionality of Obama's eligibility are the citizenship of his parents. 

From NoBarack08's Weblog:

There has been much debate as to whether the term “Natural Born Citizen” has ever been legally defined or will some court have to finally define it, such as the Supreme Court of the United States.  The term “Natural Born Citizen” is a requirement for only two positions within our government, President and Vice-President.  What did the Founding Father’s and Framers of the United States Constitution mean to do or accomplish by placing this requirement for the highest office?
First off, let us look at what the Framer’s used as a guide.
The Founding Fathers of the United States, used Vattel’s Laws of Nations as their guide and reference to meanings and definitions within our Constitution.
The myth that the founding of American Republic was based on the philosophy of John Locke could only have been maintained, because the history of Leibniz’s influence was suppressed. The American Revolution was, in fact, a battle against the philosophy of Locke and the English utilitarians. Key to this struggle, was the work of the Eighteenth-century jurist, Emmerich de Vattel, whose widely read text, The Law of Nations, guided the framing of the United States as the world’s first constitutional republic. Vattel had challenged the most basic axioms of the Venetian party, which had taken over England before the time of the American Revolution, and it was from Vattel’s The Law of Nations, more than anywhere else, that America’s founders learned the Leibnizian natural law, which became the basis for the American System.

Read more