[WhiskeyX]

That begs the question of how you could possibly understand the source of the natural born citizen clause when you apprently do not understand the origin of the American common law and other American law from which they arose using various available legal sources of the time period?

[Abd al-Rahiim]

In post 126, I listed three claims that 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."

You then disagreed and said "Your claim of items not being in dispute are erroneous and false." Well, which ones, I asked? You then gave me a post which did not address any of the items I listed. I pointed this out, and still you are not pointing out which of the items I listed you believe ARE in dispute.