People like you are the reason why I get sooo mad at the Vattle Birthers. They have given you false and bad legal advice to the point where you will not vote for a good conservative person because you have believed the Vattle Birthers lies about stuff. They should be ashamed of themselves.
Nothing Levin nor any of the Vattel people says makes any difference to me. What matters is what SCOTUS rules. And they refuse.
SCOTUS doesn’t care whether our military officers can keep their oaths with a clean conscience and they don’t care whether any of us voters can pull the lever with a clean conscience either.
If I can’t pull it with a clean conscience, then I’m not gonna pull it at all. Plain and simple. If you don’t like that, I suggest you talk to SCOTUS and suggest that they do their job.
Harvard Law (1966): When a person is a citizen by jus sanguinis, is he natural born or naturalized? The answer. to this question will determine the applicability of certain expatriation provisions 479 and the citizen's qualification for the presidency. Some courts, relying on dicta in United States v. Wong Kim Ark 480 equating natural born with native born, have indicated that those who claim citizenship solely by parentage are naturalized citizens. 481 But this conclusion seems opposed to the common law concept -which may be assumed to be written into the constitutional requirements for the presidency -that jus sanguinis confers naturalborn citizenship. 482 And even if the common law did not regard citizens by jus sanguinis as natural born, the expatriation provisions were apparently not intended by Congress to apply to this class of citizens: the jus sanguinis provisions are in the “citizenship at birth” section, while the Act defines naturalization as “conferring nationality. ..after birth.” 483
____________________________________________________________
479 See § 352(a), 66 STAT. 269 (1952), 8 U.S.C. § 1484(a) (Supp. 1953);
pp. 739-42 infra.
480 169 U.S. 649, 702 (1898).
481 Zimmer v. Acheson, 191 F.2d 209 (10th Cir. 1951); see Schaufus v. Attorney General, 45 F. Supp. 61, 67 (D. Md. 1942).
482 See 5o MIcH. L. REV. 926 (1952).
483§ 101(a) (23), 66 STAT. 169 (1952), 8 U.S.C. § 101(a)(23) (Supp. 1953),formerly 54 STAT. 1137 (1940), 8 U.S.C. § 501(c) (1946).
____________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________
Michigan Law (1952)The problem presented by the principal case is whether a person born in a foreign country to American parents, thereby becoming an American citizen at birth, is to be considered a “naturalized” or a “natural born” citizen of the United States. The solution will determine whether he may become the President of this country,5 and whether he is subject to laws providing for the expatriation of naturalized citizens. The result of the principal case is to limit the category “natural born” to those who become citizens under the doctrine of jus soli;6 this makes it co-extensive with the term “native born.” Of importance in this problem is whether these children took the nationality of their parents at common law, for if they are citizens by virtue of their birth and without the aid of statute, then certainly they are “natural born” and not “naturalized” citizens. In most continental European countries the doctrine of jus sanguinis7 is applied.8 England follows the same rule, both by virtue of the common law9
____________________________________________________________
5 U.S. Const., Art. II, §1.
6 Citizenship of the place of one’s birth by virtue of being born within that state.
7 Citizenship of the place of one’s descent or parentage, no matter where born.
8 1 Willoughby, Tn Constitution §202 (1922); Flournoy AND Hudson, NATIONALITY
LAWS (1929); Harvard Research in International Law on Nationality, 23 AM.J. INT. L., Spec. Supp. 80 (1929).
9 Brooke’s ABRIDGMENT, title Denizen et alien, pl. 6 and 21; title Descent, pl. 47
(1573). See also Calvin's Case, 7 Coke 1, 77 Eng. Rep. 377 (1609);
I love Marco Rubio. That’s all!
Seldom have I seen a person prattle on in greater ignorance. If you would spend more time learning about that to which you are referring your opinion might eventually be regarded as having some value. The first thing you need to learn is how little you actually know.
"The fathers of independence soon felt that they were in accord with the ideas of Vattel. "
Vattel’s Influence on the term "a Natural Born Citizen"
Vattel's ideas were heavily influential for our entire form of government.