“Law of Nations” is not the law. It's just a book ... Appealing to someone's book doesn't change that.”
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. |
MLO is too busy swiping references and talking points from leftist websites to pay any attention to all that.
The only way to define natural born citizenship is as Constitutional citizenship. If there was any question as to what that entailed right after the founding, that question was put to rest with the 14th Amendment. A natural born citizen is one born under the full and complete jurisdiction in regards to the soil and not owing allegiance to any other nation by blood.