A few questions about this:
1) Do the founders sight this in The Federalist Papers or The Anti-Federalist Papers. I don’t recall hearing about it.
2)It seems to give strength to both NB1 (father citizenship is key, born on US soil required) and NB3 (both parents citizenship required, born on US soil) which position are you advancing? Why?
It seems to be NB3. The case that the SC declined to hear was based on the NB1 argument. Given that NB3 is even a stricter interpretation I rate chances that SC will agree to hear such a challenge as ‘vanishingly low’.
3)Are you aware of this text being sighted in any other Supreme Court rulings?
4)Why do you feel that this one fairly obscure reference trumps all other interpretations?
>>>Do the founders sight this in The Federalist Papers or The Anti-Federalist Papers.
The Law of Nations by Emmerich de Vattel was found in the Federalists papers.
>>>both parents citizenship required, born on US soil
I am advancing both parents because that is how the Constitution was intended and my links states why.
>>>Are you aware of this text being sighted in any other Supreme Court rulings?
Yes. Google searches on Law of Nations pulls many court cases. Supreme too.
>>>Why do you feel that this one fairly obscure reference trumps all other interpretations?
I don’t feel it is obscure. If you read my link about the Law of Nations, I wrote why. I also contributed to the video.
The problem with all previous Supreme Court rulings is that they dealt with citizenship, not natural born citizenship.
Certainly both the "Law of Nations" and "Blackstone's Commentaries" have been cited many, many times in courts at all levels.
If there is a conflict, and there is in this case, I would tend to go with Blackstone, rather than "Law of Nations", because it was more familiar to and more often cited by the founders and framers of the Constitution.
But, AFAIK, the Court has not ruled against *any* of the theories, since they have only refused cert or dismissed requests for injunctions/temporary restraining orders. They have not heard any arguments on the merits of any of the cases so far.