Agreed. In fact, Vattel was used extensively throughout the formation of the State; however, and this is my point, I don't see that his deference going to the level of ruling a statute unconstitutional based upon the Vattel reference.
Having said that, is the goal of these folks to have §301 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) ruled unconstitutional (using the judicial review principle established in Marbury) because it violates the original intent of the founders (as could be demonstrated using Vattel as a source to show the founders' intent)?
If that is the case, I wish SOMEBODY would just come out and say so. While that is taking a sledgehammer to a gnat (i.e., the fallout of such a ruling would have tremendous and widespread impact on all of our society, perhaps impacting the citizenship status of multiple generations of people), that would be a defensible strategy.
But what I see them doing is trying to cite Vattel in an effort to deny "natural born citizenship" to Øbama, without reference to the constitutionality of the INA §301 or without reference to the status of any other person declared a "natural born citizen" under that law. And that just doesn't make sense at all.
Frankly, they could achieve the same goal by bringing forward a case involving somebody else other than Øbama. For example, if they could identify a person granted citizenship via §301(a)(7) who was hired for a job (where verification of citizenship was required), find an actual natural-born citizen who applied for the job but was not hired, and have the not-hired person sue the employer, the State Department, and the USCIS for accepting and issuing a fraudulent citizenship certificate (citing the unconstitutionality of the INA §301 as the rationale). The effect would be the same, but it would be less politically charged and so might actually receive a better hearing in the courts. Then, once INA §301 was ruled unconstitutional, it would be a simple matter of proving that Øbama wasn't born in the US or possessions (well, simple if the documentation is made available)...at which moment, he would be stripped not only of natural born citizenship, but of citizenship, itself...and, naturally, they would have no choice but to rule him unqualified for any federal office, not just the office of President.
That's the reason why I say to simply apply the INA §301 properly to this situation. In other words, if it could be proven that Øbama was not born in the US or outlying possessions, he couldn't have had citizenship passed on to him, because his mother didn't meet the requirements of the INA §301(a)(7). And, you don't end up with a major constitutional question to resolve at the same time (a particular concern considering the widespread impact that such a ruling would have on society at large...an impact that could significantly color how a SCOTUS decision would be made).
For what it's worth.
Thanks for the lengthy and thoughtful reply. I’m at the office, however, and can’t give it the time and consideration it deserves. I’ll get back to you on this, this evening.
Furthermore, there is no statute law, and AFAIK, no regulation that makes a distinction between "citizen" and "natural born citizen" in terms of eligibility for any benefit or employment. There may be some indirect effect of being naturalized, mainly in obtaining some levels of security clearance, because of having so many foreign close relatives. Obama himself probably could not get a clearance, so called "YANKEE WHITE", to clean Air Force One or service it's sanitary tank, because of too many foreign relatives, but one of the requirements for that is only to be a US Citizen, not a Natural Born, or even native born citizen.One of the Disqualifying Criteria is:
E4.1.7.3. Immediate family are citizens of another country. Immediate family under this Instruction includes spouse, offspring, living parents, brothers, sisters, or other relatives or persons to whom the individual is closely linked by affection or obligation. It must be determined that family members are not subject to physical, mental, or other forms of duress by a foreign power and who do not advocate or practice acts of force or violence to prevent others from exercising their rights under the constitution or laws of the United States or any State or subdivision thereof.