[Lmo56]

Has anyone here yet made the case that legally or by statute it was determined that Vattel’s definition of Natural Born Citizen was what the founders meant when writing the Constitution? Because without that, the rest of this thread is irrelevant.

There's only 2 ways to determine this - by amendment or by SCOTUS decision. Statute don't count. And, NO, it has never been determined that it is Vattel's definition - just as NBC being defined as jus soli alone has never been determined ...

Same thing happened in District of Columbia v. Heller. The meaning of the phrase "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" had to be interpreted from the Founders' intent.

The phrase was ambiguous in today's vernacular - gun control advocates said it meant that only the militia could bear arms. Gun rights people said it meant that they had a legal right to own a gun.

Gun rights advocates won.

FYI: This CURRENTLY only applies to federal districts - there is another case [about the same issue] coming up before the Court concerning States' authority to ban guns ...

[PugetSoundSoldier]

And, NO, it has never been determined that it is Vattel's definition - just as NBC being defined as jus soli alone has never been determined ...

GREAT! Thank you... This cuts to the chase of the entire (and similar) thread. We don't have a definition of Natural Born Citizen, so arguments about who is and who isn't is simply debating angels on the head of a pin.