Do you understand why Vattel was applied in this case? Because it dealt with International Law (ie law of nations). Indians were considered foreign citizens of sovereign nations.
You are conflating a ruling on Indian citizenship to American citizenship in general.
Besides, the court rejected the Partus Sequitur Patrem rule in Sloan v U.S.
Do you understand why Vattel was applied in this case? Because it dealt with International Law (ie law of nations). Indians were considered foreign citizens of sovereign nations. ALL matters of citizenship are a function of International law. Within domestic law, there is no need to apply the designation of "citizen" because everyone is of the exact same political status. Were there not other nations, there would be no such thing as the word "citizen." It's very existence implies Others who are not, and it therefore is a function of the existence of other nations. Ergo Inter-National law.
You are conflating a ruling on Indian citizenship to American citizenship in general.
Read the decision again, CLOSELY. At the beginning of the second page The Judge says:
... the question is to be solved in the same way as if one parent was a citizen of the United States and the other a citizen of a foreign nation.
Let that sink in for a moment. What the Judge is describing is the EXACT situation of Barack Obama, and by that Judge's understanding of the law, He would rule that Barack Obama WAS NOT even a CITIZEN, let alone a "natural born citizen."
NOT EVEN A CITIZEN.
Do you understand why Vattel was applied in this case? Because it dealt with International Law (ie law of nations). Indians were considered foreign citizens of sovereign nations. Yes, but in actuality they were not treated the same as citizens of OTHER foreign and sovereign nations. The Children of anyone of European descent were automatically granted citizenship status upon birth. The Children of Indians were not. (My Grandfather was 1/2 Cherokee by the way.)
You are conflating a ruling on Indian citizenship to American citizenship in general.
I am pointing out that a Judge which ruled on a case regarding a man who was adjudged to be a Non-Indian, said the same process would be used if one of the parents of a child was an American Citizen and the other was a member of a foreign nation.
The case was NOT about an Indian, it was about a man who CLAIMED to be an Indian and argued the court did not have jurisdiction because a treaty had removed the court's jurisdiction regarding Indians.
Besides, the court rejected the Partus Sequitur Patrem rule in Sloan v U.S.
I will look it up, but I cannot help but think you are looking to some of the Fogbow sites for your information. When you came into this discussion there were many things you did not know, now I see you quoting the Fogbow crew's arguing points. This stuff is pretty esoteric, and the only people researching it are Us and the enemy.(Liberal Democrat Obama supporters.)