[AmericanVictory]

The Indiana opinion relies upon the same generalities and scarceely overturns the opinion of Joseph Story. Not is it at all persuasive as up against that of John Marshall or the authority of either St. George Tucker or Daniel Ramsay.

Granted, Arthur was dead but the question of his having been ineligible was still being raised and in fact was increasing at the time.

How about some actual proof that any Framer relied upon the point you seek to make as allegedly from the common law of England as it dealt with "subjects" rather than citoyen. Do you think that we during the period of "secring the Revolution" leading to the War of 1812, agreed with the British citing of jus soli" in order to impress our seamen and impress them in the Royal Navy? The simple fact is that we as a nation did not and wound up securing the Revolution by winning the War of 1812, even after Washington was sacked. This history soundly disproves your thesis.

[Abd al-Rahiim]

The Indiana opinion relies upon the same generalities and scarceely overturns the opinion of Joseph Story.

Do you know exactly what Justice Story said? I believe you are referring to the following:

Those political rights do not stand upon the mere doctrines of municipal law, applicable to ordinary transactions, but stand upon the more general principles of the law of nations.

Why is that "controlling precedent" and not merely dicta? What was Shanks about, exactly? (I add that de Vattel is not cited anywhere in Shanks.)