[WhiskeyX]

It appears you are hungup on the problem of not understanding the origins of American common law.

[Abd al-Rahiim]

It appears you are hungup on the problem of not understanding the origins of American common law.

Quite possible. But I do know the following are not in dispute:

1. "Natural-born citizen" isn't defined in the Constitution. As observed by Chief Justice Waite, "Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that."
2. Chief Justice Waite referenced "common law." He did not cite de Vattel anywhere in the Court's unanimous opinion for Minor.
3. Justice Scalia has stated in oral arguments that "the meaning of natural born within the Constitution...requires jus soli."

From my perspective, I see people who are desperately clinging on to the belief that BHO II isn't a "natural-born citizen" to the point where they are willing to move closer to Justice Breyer than Justice Scalia in treating "the law of nations" (read: public international [foreign] law) as American common law.

Folks, get over it. If Justice Scalia is stating that "the meaning of natural born within the Constitution...requires jus soli," I have very little doubt that he is wrong, given his status as the Court's staunchest defender of originalism. Some of y'all don't like our current citizenship laws. Fine, but y'all should be pressing for a Constitutional amendment to change our nationality laws to be closer to those of, say, Switzerland, where jus soli doesn't exist at all.