[AmericanVictory]

I never said that Shanks mentioned Vattel. All I said was it made it clear that the Framers looked to the law of nations on matters of citizenship and not to the English common law. To maintain to the contrary, that they looked to English common law, is to go against his ruling in that regard. I have already said what the case is about when I spoke of it as being what Scalia was referring to.

[Abd al-Rahiim]

To maintain to the contrary, that they looked to English common law, is to go against his ruling in that regard. I have already said what the case is about when I spoke of it as being what Scalia was referring to.

What was Shanks about? Was it about defining who a natural-born citizen is? Or was it about

...whether her subsequent removal with her husband operated as a virtual dissolution of her allegiance, and fixed her future allegiance to the British crown, by the treaty of peace of 1783. Our opinion is that it did.

As for "maintain[ing] to the contrary," could you please explain to us, then, why Chief Justice Waite, in his dicta to Minor, found "resort" in "common law," instead of "the law of nations"?