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.
Yes! One of the most amazing dodges I've ever seen in history! Truly pathetic in every way. Supreme MICE!
“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.”
This is interesting. How do you suppose the founders and framers dealt with the allegiance ties to a king in a monarchy? e.g. They could lean more towards the french way of doing things, or lean towards englands’ ways. I suppose those are the two options.