[mlo]

"Law of Nations" is not the law. It's just a book.

English common law, an hence the US common law, is different. And according to it one is a "natural born subject/citizen" when born in the country, regardless of citizenship of the parents. Appealing to someone's book doesn't change that.

[rxsid]

Natural law, which as you know predates British Common law by many centuries, is the basis for Law of Nations. It's far more than "someone's book." Any idea where Jefferson got the "foundational" ideas from when he drafted the Declaration of Independence? This "book" has played a far more significant role in our country's history that you allude to. Oh, b.t.w. Madison confirms (in his notes) that the Law of Nations was openly read during the Constitutional Convention itself. http://www.consource.org/index.asp?bid=582&fid=600&documentid=57

[pissant]

Ever hear of original intent? Thought not

[rxsid]

“Historical Practice and the Contemporary Debate Over Customary International Law
…
“I. Judicial Power in the Early Republic First, the history. Professors Bellia and Clark argue that the founding generation entertained an “initial assumption that the United States—like the states—had received the common law and thus could prosecute and punish common law crimes, including offenses against the law of nations.”6 Bellia and Clark acknowledge that this assumption was widely rejected in the course of debates over the constitutionality of the Sedition Act.7 Indeed, when the Supreme Court definitively interred the doctrine of federal common law crimes in the 1812 case of United States v. Hudson & Goodwin, it could say that the question already had long been “settled in public opinion.”8

A related debate in the early Republic, however, suggests even greater hostility to the idea of federal common lawmaking powers. As Justice Souter has pointed out, “the founding generation . . . join[ed] . . . an appreciation of its immediate and powerful common-law heritage with caution in settling that inheritance on the political systems of the new Republic.”10 The colonial and early state governments carefully limited their reception of English common law to those principles that were applicable to local conditions.11 Citizens of the young Republic often viewed the common law with considerable hostility; after all, they had just fought a revolution to throw off English rule…”

This ambivalence played out in debates over ratification of the new national Constitution. All participants seem to have understood that the new federal Constitution did not receive the English common law as part of national law,13 unlike many of the state constitutions. Opponents of ratification went so far as to complain that the proposed document failed to guarantee common law rights.14 Federalists responded that receiving the common law into the federal Constitution would trample the diversity of the common law, as received in the several states; even worse, a federal reception would render the common law “immutable” and not subject to congressional revision.15 Hence, “the Framers chose to recognize only particular common-law concepts, such as the writ of habeas corpus, U.S. Const. Art. I, § 9, cl. 2, and the distinction between law and equity, U.S. Const., Amdt. 7, by specific reference in the constitutional text.”16 They insisted, however, that any general reception of the English common law into federal law would be “destructive to republican principles.”17

…More generally, the early American reaction to the common law in both the Federal Constitution and the states suggests a general suspicion of unwritten, judge-defined law and a strong preference for legislative primacy. This is quite consistent, of course, with the Framers’ decision explicitly to authorize Congress to “define and punish . . . Offenses against the Law of Nations.”18″

Much more here: http://www.columbialawreview.org/articles/historical-practice-and-the-contemporary-debate-over-customary-international-law

[BP2]

“Law of Nations” is not the law. It's just a book
...
Appealing to someone's book doesn't change that.”

Instead of offering YOUR opinion — or MY opinion — let's look at an Opinion from the SCOTUS ... the folks likely to decide this in the end, anyway ...

The SCOTUS regularly uses ... you know — BOOKS — to define the intent of the Framers in SCOTUS Opinions, especially for Constitutional questions. And the Justices do not reference modern law books using the codification of the 20th century — such as an Immigration Law from 1995 to define 17th Century "terms of art" — rather the definitions, idioms and semantics used BY THE FRAMERS in "founding-era sources" available at the time of the creation of the Constitution — also in BOOKS.

To demonstrate this, here are some highlighted excerpts of the 157-page Opinion where the SCOTUS used BOOKS to define the “right of the people” and “keep and bear arms” in the landmark District of Columbia v. Heller case heard nearly two years ago:

Hint: pay attention to the LAST page — you'll find Vattel referenced there — as the SCOTUS often defers to "The Law of Nations" to establish the Framers' intent in SCOTUS Opinions:

Fully expect that when the SCOTUS understands that the Legislative branch has been UNsuccessful in nearly 30 attempts since the 1870s to define "natural born citizen", the SCOTUS will probably be forced to define it FOR Congress. AND they will use Vattel's definition.

[Lmo56]

English common law, an hence the US common law, is different. And according to it one is a “natural born subject/citizen” when born in the country, regardless of citizenship of the parents. Appealing to someone’s book doesn’t change that.

***

Nope - Blackstone DOES NOT say that ...

Blackstone (the English Common Law authority) in the 1700’s states that children born in England to aliens are GENERALLY SPEAKING natural born subjects.

The exceptions being children born to aliens who had an allegiance to a foreign sovreign AND that foreign sovreign conferred it on the child also.

In other words - dual citizenship ...

Calvin’s Case agrees as does Dicey, as cited in the Ark decision.