[edge919]

Technically it’s not a two-parent requirement, but a one-parent requirement as defined by Vattel ... simply that the citizenship of the child naturally follows the citizenship of the father. So even in a one-parent definition, Obama is still not a natural born citizen. The Supreme Court has cited Vattel frequently over the years and used his definition as the basis for its own definition of natural born citizen. This much is indisputable.

Otherwise, this is a nebulous argument. The public didn’t argue whether Pluto was a planet or not until AFTER scientists declared it was not. Once someone stepped forth with an official definition, then it becomes a public issue, and the same holds true with Obama.

[lucysmom]

Vattel ... simply that the citizenship of the child naturally follows the citizenship of the father.

I for one, am happy to say the status of women has changed a great deal from what it was in Vattel's time. We vote now, we can inherit, manage our own finances, in short, we are now recognized as full adult citizens.

[mlo]

"The Supreme Court has cited Vattel frequently over the years and used his definition as the basis for its own definition of natural born citizen. This much is indisputable."

It's not only disputable, it's dead wrong.

Vattel didn't define "natural born citizen" at all. What he did was comment on the various practices in European countries. And in this one respect, citizenship following the father, he was talking about continental countries and noted that the tradition in England was different. The US followed the English tradition.

Vattel, like many authors, has been cited in decisions. But Vattel, like other authors, doesn't define US law. Not all of those decisions were about citizenship, and some of them were dissenting (losing) opinions.

The Supreme Court's definition of "natural born citizen" does not rely on the citizenship of the parents.

[Forty-Niner]

“Technically it’s not a two-parent requirement, but a one-parent requirement as defined by Vattel”

I believe that in the 1700 on up through the early 1900’s when women got the right to vote, that a womans citizenship followed that of her husbands.......therefore if the husband was a US citizen so was the wife......

That is, a woman did not hold citizenship separate from her husband’s. Vattels says “parents” then goes on to talk about the father only.......

Your thoughts?