Replies

I understand what you're saying, especially about laws applying outside of DC when they're only supposed to apply to only those inside DC.

The only difference between them is 'jus sanguinis ' is only inheritable by blood, and 'jus soli' is only acquirable by laws.
We'll just have to disagree on the jus sanguinis/jus soli aspect then as, to me, it appears that both apply.
I defer to Mario Apuzzo...'The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law' as U.S. Federal Common Law Not English Common Law Define What an Article II Natural Born Citizen Is (if you haven't read it before...it's long)

Throughout American history, there have been no doubts or disputes as to who is a “natural born Citizen.” As we have seen, it was not English common law but the law of nations that became United States common law that defined a “natural born Citizen.” It defined such a citizen as being born in the country to parents who are themselves citizens. It is this definition which our United States Supreme Court incorporated into our federal common law. It is this definition that creates subsequent generation “citizens” who are “natural born Citizens.” They are subsequent generation because born in the country to a mother and father who are citizens.

One of the rather interesting implicatons is the way in which the Framers so confdently consulted varous legal authorities, analyzed the basis for their commentaries on citizenship, and then concluded the natural born citizen clause as their own unique application of the natural law principles in a basic definition accomplishing the exclusion they intended. I’d wager they would be shaking their head sin disbelief to see their straightforward thinking being so badly misrepesented and misapplied today.

(if you haven't read it before...it's long)

LOL! It is loong, and yes, I've read it.

I still don't agree. Tucker specifically stated otherwise, and honestly, I can see no difference in Vattel's and Blackstone's definitions.

Besides, Apuzzo IS a lawyer, so I really don't expect an Officer of the Court to ADMIT the 14th Amendment was unconstitutional, do you? ;-)