Nobody’s denying Ben said what he said. But Vattel loses the contest against English common law when it comes to the meaning of natural born citizenship.
Not one single reputable lawyer or scholar agrees with you. Doesn’t that mean anything to you?
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/17th.asp
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/17th.asp
The above is for your general reading and enjoyment.
Take care, y’all. I just stopped back to post that link, which a friend told me about.
Our country’s legal heritage clearly comes from England and not from a Swiss philosopher.
I won’t return to this thread. Take good care and I hope to see you after the Joker has been dealt with.
Okay. If English common law is so overpowering, then the son of a British subject will, himself be a British subject, regardless of his location of birth. Obama Sr. was a British subject, so what application of "common law" makes his son both a British subject and "natural born citizen" of another country?
The link you provided is very interesting and I scanned a variety of pages. However, I have not yet discovered anything that clearly explains a reliance on English common law. Can you be a little more specific?
Also, I am still interested in a link to any documentation you have that explains the U.S. Constitution's NBC definition, as it was understood by the authors.
BTW, do you have a legal background? I wondered if this was part of the basis of your knowledge of law. I'm a (non-practicing) English teacher, so much of my viewpoint is based on reading documents and expecting them to mean what they say.