Sorry, I made a mistake, Swiss, not French. The Laws of Nations was a given set of laws in Europe at the time that those nations, specifically the English, used as almost a baseline for their own interactions.
US Law however, is based on Common Law, not the “Laws of Nations” which was an old offshoot of Roman Law (if my memory of the history of it is correct).
<Groan...>“.....US Law however, is based on Common Law, not the “Laws of Nations” “
Common law is law “by tradition.” The US uses Statuate Law....”written law.” The Common Law of the British Isles is not common to the US.....except its use as one of many transitional references for the US as it built up its own body of laws, and judicial review decisions.
Vittal’s Law of Nations/Natural law is a treatise on legal concepts, using natural rationals/logic as a basis for legal thought. Like some European jurists, the US Constitutional Convention delegates used this book as a reference in writing the US Constitution. They also used Blackwood’s Commentary on Common Law as a reference. Ideas from both sources were used. Not one to the exclusion of the other as some would recently, in the Obama era, have it.
It is quite evident from both the term “NBC” as opposed to common law’s term “NBS”, and by the body of USSC decisions, Minor, et al, that Vittal’s term NBC and it’s definition was the one used by the Founders in writting Article II eligibilty requirements because it met their basic concerns about a future President’s loyality....which British common law’s term “NBS” didn’t.
Insisting on the British Common Law term NBS is a red herring used by Obama apologists to add confusion to the question of Obama’s basic eligibility to hold the Office of President of the United States. In fact it has no bearing on Article II eligibility requirements. Obama, born to a foreign national, is ineligible to serve as POTUS........Is he a citizen?.... probably....Is he a Natural Born Citizen?.....no way in hell......