[BP2]

Hmmm, let’s see what WONG KIM ARK v US says, referencing MINOR v. HAPPERSETT:

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.

Wow. Sounds a bit like Vattel:

Palsy, are you NOW saying that Obama SR was a US Citizen?

[parsifal]

OMG!!!! You done and went and found the secret language in Wong! We are doomed! Obama! Rahm! The jig is up! They caught us! Eric Holder, I still expect to get my check....Oh my world....wailing and gnashing of teeth....Why did I ever tell them to read Wong? Oh what could I have been thinking?...The reverse psychology failed....

That was fun. Now, seriously, I think what you are reading is the part where they are discussing the laws of nations thing. So, to discuss it, they first set out what some of the laws of nations were. Heck, they might even have mentioned Vattel.

The reason why they discussed the laws of nations was that they found.......drum roll.....drum roll.....rat-a-tat-tat....:

That the application of English common law, the jus soli part, was NOT something completely outside the law of nations. If you go to the Cornell site, and don’t get the habeus by mistake, you can find the exact language.

parsy, who says, “Gee, isn’t actually reading the case fun?” For real.