[DJ MacWoW]

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/03pdf/03-339.pdf

Page 24.

“When the United States declared their independence, they were bound to receive the law of nations, in its mod-ern state of purity and refinement.” Ware v. Hylton, 3 Dall. 199, 281 (1796) (Wilson, J.). In the years of the early Re-public, this law of nations comprised two principal ele-ments, the first covering the general norms governing the behavior of national states with each other: “the science which teaches the rights subsisting between nations or states, and the obligations correspondent to those rights,” E. de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Preliminaries §3 (J. Chitty et al. transl. and ed. 1883) (hereinafter Vattel)

[TNTNT]

Again, the SCOTUS is referring to international law. No one denies that Vattel’s book had to do with international law, hence it's title. Now just because SCOTUS cites this book in a case of first impression involving the international abduction of a drug dealer to the USA to stand trial is not unusual. That gives zero credence to the idea that SCOTUS will use Vattel’s book if they decide to take another case regarding NBC. Since it is well established and settled law that if you are born in the USA, then you are a NBC, it highly doubtful SCOTUS will grant cert in a birther case regarding this issue. SCOTUS rarely, if ever, accepts case when the legal precedent goes back over 100 years unless there are conflicting CCA opinions. There are none in this situation and doubtful there will be after over 80 cases.