It matters because we have a legal system based on precedent. If you want to interpret a phrase of the constitution, say "natural born citizen," a certain way, at a minimum you have to show that your interpretation isn't new, that it is consistent with how it has been interpreted historically.
The fact that NO ONE before Nov. 2008 was interpreting "natural born citizen" to absolutely require that both parents be citizens if the child is born in the USA pretty much proves that interpretation was made up in Nov. 2008, and hence cannot be valid.
Okay how is this for precedent! There are a number of cases that have addressed citizenship using Vattel prior to the Wong Kim Ark case. The Wong Kim Ark case which you site as the “gospel” is the only case I have found that does not cite Vattel. The case of Wok Kim Ark completely ignored the Supreme Court’s own precedent. The following is a link to an in depth look at these cases.
http://www.thepostemail.com/2009/10/18/4-supreme-court-cases-define-natural-born-citizen/
Prove to me or anyone else here that the chair your butt is planted on is real.
Let me give you a real big help out here... You can’t.
You cannot possibly be trying to argue the validity of a point of history and law based upon whether or not it appears at Free Republic.
NowI LOVE Free Republic. Not even I am ever going to say that it is the first middle and last word on ANYTHING. Whether or not something appears her or does NOT appear here does not make any point valid OR invalid.
ROTFLMAO
Your logic doesn’t even come close to being solid. You can’t even begin to argue your way out of that particular bit of wet paper bag with a machette of logic like that. The “Idiot Abroad” is smarter and more logical than you are.
Don’t tell me, you are just channeling the sound of one finger typing..... gotcha.