I believe that Donofrio is defining and explaining the concept for lay people. There is a great deal of disinformation out in the bloggosphere by Obots who deliberately attempt to confuse lay persons. Because we do not have the education in the law, this is relatively easy to do. Donofrio has given the layperson greater understanding of a concept important to understand in the debate as a whole.
Thanks for the cogent post! :)
Perhaps, but he tried to add credibility to his point by calling out lawyers specifically, and daring them to challenge his argument.
His argument does have merit to the extext he is opposing those who argue that the 14th Amendment overruled the NBC. But it doesn't help with the underlying De Vattel disagreement, which, in the interests of full disclosure, I reject. My personal legal experience and knowledge is that the default rule in American jurisprudence has always been English Common law, and under the common law, jus solis -- you are a citizen of the place in which you are born -- was the rule. Jus sanguinas -- that citizenship must be based on the citizenship of your parents, was not the common law in England. It was more common on the Continent, so it makes sense that a Swiss like De Vattel would promote that view.
But I don't really get upset about it either way. Kind of sad that it has divided people here so much, because as a matter of realism, it is a settled issue.