Fair enough. I accept this. But to say that it was "something other than English" common law is extremely weak, and to say that "common law" is the "law of nations" is not supported by any of sourcery's sources.
But he does here admit that there is a difference of opinion somewhere.
Absolutely true. de Vattel's "les naturels" and English common law's "natural-born subject" are not defined the same way; there is a conflict.
The entire point of him saying that there was “doubt” shifts the burden of proof, and the court said it was simply not going to deal with it now, and the ball is back in your (or someone elses) court.
Thank for your thoughtful and unbiased commentary. You're right; the ball is back in "my" court. Who do I pass it to? Easy: Justice Gray and Wong Kim Ark. Justice Gray analyzes English common law and concludes that "the same rule was in effect" at the time of ratification. Five other Justices joined his opinion, none of whom was appointed by President Arthur. Wong Kim Ark was never overruled, and Judges from lower courts have cited his analysis to conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are "natural [*29] born Citizens" for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person "born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject" at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those "born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens.
The author of the above quote, Judge Brown, was appointed by Governor Mitch Daniels of Indiana, the same governor who yesterday defunded Planned Parenthood in his state. Let there be no doubt: Judge Brown is not "protecting" anyone.
It is unfortunate that the “supreme” Court has proven itself to be anti-Constitution at times. We cannot look to the Kelo Court, for example, as being godlike. Even back in the 1800s, we had creeps in that court.
The real question is not court precedent. The real question is Original Intent. I’m no lawyer, but it seems to me that many misinterpretations arose from the amendment passed after the Civil War, such as “no establishment of religion” being mushroomed to ridiculous heights.
Did people after the Civil War intend children of foreign fathers to be qualified as “natural born” and President? Our Founding Fathers did not, so who did?