Replies

"Yes, indeed, a case in which Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 was not at issue or discussed."

Actually... you are wrong. It absolutely was discussed. I quote again from the decision in Wong Kim Ark:

"The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the language, "a natural-born citizen." It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth."

I guess you just missed it. That's okay. That's what happens when you only skim a decision rather than actually read it.

"I see you still cite no common law authrfity for your assdertions."

Other than the direct quotation from Blackstone, you mean?

What direct quotation from Blackstone is that? If you were to read Chief Justice Fuller's well known dissent in Wong Kim Ark you would have a clearer picture of why during the constitutional conventions Vattel, along with Locke and others, was constantly discussed. the common law as you interpret it, which, I would say, indicates a lack of familiarity with its actual development, was not the influence that you say. There is no evidence that it was in the actual debates. to the contrary, when it was referred to in the final document, the reference was specific, as with regard to trial by jury. You are engaging in pure surmise unsupported by the historical record. The fact remains that "natural born citizenship" as set out in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 was not at issue in Wong Kim Ark.. You are distorting it beyond what it says. Would you say you are more authoritative on the actual point than John Marshall, joined by Livingston, in his opinion in The Venus?. He seems to have been a bit closer to the events and more learned than yourself. By the way on one day of the actual constitutional convention Martin of Maryland irked others by extended readings from Locke and Vattel and others. The incorrectness of your view was pointed out again by SCOTUS in Schneider v. Rusk in 1963 as recently pointed out by the 10th Circuit in Craig. Why do you delight so in misinforming people about the Constitution? Do you not have respect for it as the basis for our government or do you just enjoy being poorly informed? Perhaps you wish to do it and us harm and assist the massive fraud that is being perpetrated?