I didn’t answer it because it isn’t relevant for me.
This is a court of law.
Aren’t you a Vattel supporter??????
Did it ever occur to you that the lower case in Wong Kim Ark
REJECTED Vattel and so did SCOTUS.
Yes, SCOTUS rejected the Law of Nations as they were slaughtering the 14th Amendment. Can’t figure out how? Read the lower court case.
While everyone goes around crowing about Wong Kim Ark because they don’t understand the case..what they should have been doing is annihilating it because it is one of the worst decisions ever by the Supreme Court AND it made the 14th Amendment LESS restrictive than was the intent by Congress.
The Justices in the dissent understood what was happening and discussed it throughly.
Wong Kim Ark is NOT in your favor. It is not a case that people on this site should be crowing about while they try to prove Obama can’t be President.
I alway Chuckle to myself when I see someone espousing about Vattel who then laud Wong Kim Ark. I suppose most of these people have never read the lower case of Wong Kim Ark.
I have argued with "sometimeslurker" who asserted that the attorneys for the government argued that it would make Wong Kim Ark eligible for the Presidency, to which I replied that perhaps their argument is exactly why the court used the term "citizen" instead of "natural born citizen"? The Government attorneys made them aware of the danger and they therefore avoided it by choosing the wording they used.
Yes, I believe Wong Kim Ark was decided wrongly, but even in it's wrongness it did not go so far as to make Presidents of Anchor babies.
This isn't entirely true. Gray relied on the Law of Nations to take issue with part of the Slaughterhouse ruling where it combined consuls and foreign ministers as falling under exceptions to the subject clause of the 14th amendment. The Law of Nations is troublesome for Gray in reaching his final conclusion, but he certainly had no trouble using it when it was convenient to his point:
This was wholly aside from the question in judgment and from the course of reasoning bearing upon that question. It was unsupported by any argument, or by any reference to authorities, and that it was not formulated with the same care and exactness as if the case before the court had called for an exact definition of the phrase is apparent from its classing foreign ministers and consuls together -- whereas it was then well settled law, as has since been recognized in a judgment of this court in which Mr. Justice Miller concurred, that consuls, as such, and unless expressly invested with a diplomatic character in addition to their ordinary powers, are not considered as entrusted with authority to represent their sovereign in his intercourse [p679] with foreign States or to vindicate his prerogatives, or entitled by the law of nations to the privileges and immunities of ambassadors or public ministers, but are subject to the jurisdiction, civil and criminal, of the courts of the country in which they reside.