Why are you prattling on about statutes concerning who is naturalized at birth? That’s beside the issue of Article II.
Let us assume that Barry Soetoro is not qualified to be President. In other words, let us assume, for the purposes of argument, that it can be proven that Barry was born outside of the United States or its outlying territories.
What are you going to do about it? You will file a suit saying that he was not constitutionally qualified to be the President. There are three criteria that must be satisfied for him to be constitutionally qualified:
The term "years of age" is not, to my knowledge, defined in either Constitutional or Statutory Law. (It might be, but I'm not aware of it). So a common-law definition would be applied (as in the anniversary of a person's birth).
The term "residence" is not defined in the Constitution, but it IS defined in law. 8 U.S.C. §1101:
(33) The term "residence" means the place of general abode; the place of general abode of a person means his principal, actual dwelling place in fact, without regard to intent.
So any common-law definitions of the term really don't matter. This statutory definition takes precedence.
Likewise, the terms "natural born citizen" and "citizen by birth" have been Statutorily defined...they have been so defined since the first Naturalization Act of 1790. I've repeated those definitions multiple times in the past few days, so I won't bother you with repeating them again. But, as with the term "residence", the statute takes precedence over any common-law references. The only question comes into play if the statute is offensive to the constitution. As shown in Marbury, the courts have invested themselves with the right to determine if a statute is unconstitutional (you may or may not agree with that principle, but just try to change it).
Getting back to this court case that you're going to file, you're going to have to assert that he was not a citizen of the US by birth. Showing the Kenyan Birth Certificate is only the first step. You're also going to have to demonstrate that he does not meet any of the other criteria in the statutory definition of a "citizen by birth." Again, I have quoted that entire section before, so I won't burden you with that. You can read it for yourself here if you're interested in reviewing it.
The alternative to working within the statute is to assert that this entire section of the INA is unconstitutional and should be disregarded in determining whether Ø is a citizen by birth (or, for that matter, a citizen in any regard whatsoever). If you wanted to make this a case of constitutional law, you could cite Vattel, but the way you'd do it is to use Vattel as substantiation of "original intent" and to show that this section of the INA comes nowhere near meeting the intent of the framers when they discussed "natural born citizen" status, and, thus, is unconstitutional. I think you could potentially have a really good shot at that, considering the verbiage within Article 2 and the verbiage in the 14th Amendment.
If section 1301 of the INA is thrown out as being unconstitutional, the only alternative is then to use Vattel's definition of "natural born." But until that time, you've got to use applicable statutory law in defining your terms. Title 8 of the US Code (i.e., the immigration and nationality act) is applicable, as it deals with immigration, naturalization, AND nationality.
Or you could do it the simple way: you, as the plaintiff produce Ø's Kenyan Birth Certificate, you, as the plaintiff, show that his father was an alien and his mother didn't meet the residency requirements to pass on citizenship at the time of his birth, and *boom* -- he's not only not a "natural born citizen", he's not a citizen in any fashion (unless he produces a naturalization certificate...which he doesn't have). In theory, such a case wouldn't even have to go to the SCOTUS to be resolved; it could be resolved at the district court level.
That's why I prattle on about statutes...because they ARE pertinent when implementing Article II Section 1.
RegulatorCountry was correct, I still have a job and have just returned to FR, but had decided that MarkoMalley’s intention is to confuse the issue with irrelevant quotations, and wasn't going to respond. My experience is that once someone uses inappropriate citations, they ignore objections to those and produce more, wasting time and creating confusion among readers.
'The Venus', 12 U.S. 253 (1814) is clearly one of the few circumstances in which a Justice defines the source of common law, and the Justice was John Marshall. That, as you pointed out, is the significance. To learn original intent, when a case specifically addressing natural born citizenship has never been heard, I'm guessing that The Venus will be cited. Besides, John Marshall such an elegant writer that I think anyone reading it will better understand why he chooses to educate us for posterity. He clearly realizes that the decisions of the young court were important.
Markomally quoted exactly one of the changed phrases in a Naturalization act, when it is entirely irrelevant, and implies as well something not true, that Congress had not changed the implication involving natural born citizens which was the reason the act was modified in 1795. Markomally sounds knowledgeable in his attempts at obfuscation, which suggests that he is other than confused.
I think for those of us who are not lawyers, the beautifully expressed reasoning in The Law of Nations will make sense to most. The issue is allegiance. Writing requirements for someone whose most important job is protecting the liberties our nation was created to grant, requirements which may survive forever, how would one try to insure the inner motivations of a candidate? Looking at his or her parents may seem too obvious, but I can think of no stronger guarantee that one could impose over centuries.
That parents be citizens seems so obvious that many can't grasp it's importance.
Curiously, that is just the clause used by the gaggle of Senators and academics rested on to argue that John McCain should be considered a natural born citizen. Of course, the congress cannot amend the constitution, so I suppose bills submitted, but not passed, were more to quiet representatives who might have actually read the constitution, and read the definition of natural born “about which there has never been doubt” in the hearings over the 14th Amendment.
Obama’s allegiance is the exactly the problem. His intention, stated, since Obama’s writings, whatever there is,have all been concealed, through the writings of some of his Czars, is to replace capitalism with whatever you want to call it - socialism, Marxism, statism. Little blood has been shed, but it seems likely to be shed, perhaps first in Honduras, as he has clearly indicated his preference for Chavez - yes Chavez because that is the strongman who will control Honduras. Israel is under siege from the most extreme of our pro-palistinian Arabists, and will be attacked as promised by Iran if they don't fight their former ally, the US.
These are the issues which concern me, not debating the typographical implications of a lower case “law of nations.”
We need to keep the objectives clear. Our constitution seems sound, if only we could impose its restrictions, created to protect us from government.