[devattel]

My apologies for being on such a long sabbatical.

I believe I may be able to assist in the question on legitimacy with regards to Natural Born Citizenship and case law.

It is clear within the ruling within Minor vs. Happerset that the phrase "Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of the parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first." was stated.

There are four observations which cannot be ignored within this context:

• The Supreme Court recognized "some authorities" to include other classes of citizens to be Natural Born Ones
• The Supreme Court understood these authorities to be outside of the realm of SCOTUS
• The Supreme Court cited de Vattel's Law of Nations when defining the Natural Born Citizenship definition
• The Supreme Court stated these "corner case" definitions not fitting this decision in past tense, meaning they were discussing prior definitions

Even if the Supreme Court had "doubts" about their decision after deliberation, the fact still remains:

SCOTUS has defined what constitutes a Natural Born Citizen. Any other court will have to prove this definition to be wrong, or incomplete. Obama and his attorneys will have to prove to the courts their client meets this definition. The burden is now on the defendants to prove Obama is a Natural Born Citizen as we know based on this case that he does not fit the SCOTUS definition.

[edge919]

Sorry, but immediately, this claim ...

The Supreme Court recognized "some authorities" to include other classes of citizens to be Natural Born Ones

... is wrong and is neither supported by the composition nor by the context.

The Supreme Court understood these authorities to be outside of the realm of SCOTUS ...

No, they considered these authorities to be outside the realm of certainty.

The Supreme Court cited de Vattel's Law of Nations when defining the Natural Born Citizenship definition

Close. Their definition matched close enough to be plagiarism since Vattel was not specifically cited.

The Supreme Court stated these "corner case" definitions not fitting this decision in past tense, meaning they were discussing prior definitions

The quoted term is not used at all. Perhaps you can cite the part of the decision to which you refer.

SCOTUS has defined what constitutes a Natural Born Citizen. Any other court will have to prove this definition to be wrong, or incomplete. Obama and his attorneys will have to prove to the courts their client meets this definition. The burden is now on the defendants to prove Obama is a Natural Born Citizen as we know based on this case that he does not fit the SCOTUS definition.

This is better. The natural-born citizenship definition was REFERENCED by the Supreme Court in this unanimous decision, but it was not technically defined by the Supreme Court. They used this definition to specifically characterize a class of persons who are always recognized as citizens with no doubts and linked this term specifically to the Article II requirement for presidential eligibility. That definition defeated Virginia Minor's claim of being a citizen by way of the first part of the 14th amendment. The NBC definition was used as a self-limiting characterization in the context of the Minor decision because they immediately distinguished it from persons who must rely on other means of gaining citizenship. You either fall in this class or you don't. Obama don't.