When I look at the footnotes of those actual judicial decisions that have been rendered on who is natural born, who is native born and who is a citizen at birth, I see many more references to judicial decisions that formed precedents than I see references to foreign legal treatistes.
For example, the Indiana Court of Appeals mentions Vattel once in its ruling on Barack Obama’s natural born status. The reference is in passing stating that the plaintiffs based their argument in part on Vattel. That’s all the Court said.
You warned me about the danger of one simple cite, yet you use one simple citation to Vattel in the Venus decision. What’s up with that?
There have been none which rendered a decison on who is natural born. It's never been at issue. Yes, some opinions include such in dicta, but it is only dicta and is not precedential.
You warned me about the danger of one simple cite, yet you use one simple citation to Vattel in the Venus decision. What’s up with that?
That's not a "simple cite". What a simple cite is, is a short quote from an earlier decision, or just a statement of a supposed "principle", not even a quote, and then a citation to that earlier decision. Often when you look at the cited case, you find that the quote is way out of context, doesn't refer to anything very related to the current case, or that the cited case comes to the opposite conclusion from the current one. That's a simple cite.
Since I know you did not read the article I pointed you to, here's a link.
The whole history of judicial approval of gun control is rife with that sort of thing.
You need to go to those "precedent cases" and see what sources they used, or if they pulled it out of their ashes, with a few fancy words thrown in. Law clerks have been known to do that you know.