Right. See prior post. Natural law underlay much of Blackstone's writing as well as Lord Coke's jus soli analysis in Calvin's Case.
But nice attempt to deflect the topic after I had to twice rub your nose in the part of Tucker where he clearly indicates U.S. law is accordant with Blackstone's jus soli principle.
What would you do if you couldn’t project onto others what you are doing yourself? You love to accuse others of evasion and deflection. Yet for days I have been responding to *your* original post to *me* with an immanently pertinent question about jus soli. You refuse to answer. I.e.: what you accuse others of is what you’re actually doing.
Here is the question. In light of all that you have written about jus soli, is Cruz eligible to be POTUS?
It’s not a difficult question. It is an important question, engendered by your own comments re: jus soli. What is it about this simple question that makes it impossible for you to answer?
What, giving up on Story? I seem to recall seeing some St. George Tucker writings that you wouldn't like either, but i'm not going to go to a whole lot of trouble to find them. I'll bet i've got them bookmarked, but my forest of bookmarks is now too big to manage.
I expect someone will stumble across them again directly.
As for that "natural law" stuff, you are treating the Monarchy's version of it as if it was *OUR* version of it.
Sure, if you accept the Premise that the King is put there by God, then all the rest follows. Born to be the King's servant? Check. Perpetual allegiance? Check. Yup, it all follows from your base assumptions. But if you change the assumptions, what then follows?
Now what was Blackstone again? Wasn't he a British Subject?
I can see him leaning towards favoring the Monarchy.