Your claim of items not being in dispute are erroneous and false. You lack an understanding of the origins of American common law and its role or lack of role in the Federal courts and their jurisdiction. You are also falling prey to the problem of giving wrongful authority to SCOTUS decisons not decisive of the question regarding the definition of natural born citizen while disregarding the many instances in which contradictory opinions of equal and greater weight do define the phrase as described by Vattel.
Which item or items do you dispute? Are you saying that
You are also falling prey to the problem of giving wrongful authority to SCOTUS decisons not decisive of the question regarding the definition of natural born citizen while disregarding the many instances in which contradictory opinions of equal and greater weight do define the phrase as described by Vattel.
Which SCOTUS decision is decisive of the question regarding the definition of "natural-born citizen"? If there were one prior to 1875, Chief Justice Waite would've cited it in Minor. In fact, when it came to "resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that," he would've cited such a case. He did not. And neither did Justice Gray in 1898. The existence of such a case would've precluded Justice Gray from his lengthy and comprehensive analysis of English common law, would it have not?
Why are we even continuing this discussion? Unless one of you wants to argue that Justice Scalia is wrong; an Obamanut; or even better, when he said, "the meaning of natural born within the Constitution...requires jus soli," he meant something else, the issue is settled.