[Arthur Wildfire! March]

Thank you for the link.

Now I see the problem, Mister Valentine, and God bless you. I’ve done the same thing myself, remembering things in abbreviated form until I garble it.

Without any intention of tricking anyone, you tried to rewrite Vittel to keep it up-top-date.

I am CERTAIN that’s what they did when defending Obama.

But Vittel can’t be rewritten. Only modern thought gets rewritten.

The rewriting effort:

‘In modern times, when both mothers and fathers are equally respected as bequeathers of citizenship at birth, this paragraph must be read as follows ...’

[John Valentine]

I didn't try to hide what I did. I was very explicit about it and provided the original as well as my "updated" version. The irrefutable fact is that there is no question that Vattel ascribed primacy to blood heritage over location of birth.

It is also true that Vattel's referencing of patrilineage was reflective of the mores and practices of his time, but it is not appropriate for the post Amendment 14 world. We can certainly give weight to the general thrust of his thought without becoming obsessed with the peculiarities of the time Vattel lived and wrote. They are not determinative of the meaning of natural born citizen; they are only indicative.

[John Valentine]

‘In modern times, when both mothers and fathers are equally respected as bequeathers of citizenship at birth, this paragraph must be read as follows ...’

Yes, this is precisely my point and I thank you for your forbearance.

[John Valentine]

I would also point out that this is in no way a redefinition of 'Natural Born Citizen'.. The definition, such as it is, remains as indefinite as it ever was. Contrary to some, there never was a unanimity of opinion about this issue, and the evidence is replete throughout the 19th and 20th centuries.

If this issue were clear cut, as some maintain, there wouldn't be nearly the level of controversy. This is not a ginned up controversy. It is a controversy among men of good faith. The controversy itself is an indicator that the issue is NOT so simple or easily resolved.

I have a point of view I think justified, and I am ready to defend it, but it is not productive to have to defend it against attacks that are intentionally dishonest and intended to divert attention away from the real issues.

Everything I write is intended to add to, not detract from, clarity of thought on the issues.

I thank you for your patience and understanding.

[DannyTN]

"I am CERTAIN that’s what they did when defending Obama."

No, they never resolved any of the cases on merits. They might have taken that approach if they had, but they didn't get that far. They rejected them all on either grounds of standing, or because the issue had been sufficiently tweeted, or because of procedural issues such as (It's too early to sue because Inelligible hasn't been elected yet, and it's too late to sue because Inelligible has been seated.)