A quick command + F of the Constitution only found “law of nations” once, and I’m somewhat skeptical that it is reference to the book. Certain words never being mentioned doesn’t mean the things they represent aren’t an influence on the document.
So far as we know the clause passed without any discussion and it isn’t explained in the Federalist Papers. I have been told that the Framers were all very familiar with Vattel. They may have been, but certainly not everyone in the US would have been. And I think they would have been more explicit if they were going to reject the definition everyone would be familiar with.
And, again, strictly from a pragmatic view considering the potential repercussions of agreeing with Vattel, I don’t think the court will. They have enough leeway here that siding with the common law definitions isn’t a huge stretch.
The common law definition, which I don’t buy, is a red herring.
A natural born citizen is born of citizen parents. Note: two parents, both citizens. Because it is based on natural law, there is no statute. Any other type of citizenship is either, 1) citizenship by statute or, 2) citizenship by 14th Amendment. Neither are natural born citizenship. Note: there is no right to be president. So the Constitution’s Article 2 Presidential requirements are not discriminatory. If that were to be the case then anyone at any age or duration of residency could run for President. Since there exist instances of potential candidates being removed from state ballots because they didn’t meet one or more of the Article 2 requirements, this discriminatory claim is invalid.
I personally hope some enterprising group takes this Indiana Appeals Court decision up to higher courts - it is an invalid decision based on politics and NOT based on historical precedence. There exist documents in the custody of the Lee Family of Virginia, and descendents of the Adams Family of Massechusetts, that explain the role of Vattel in creating the U.S.Constitution. Both families insist that English Common Law played no role in the creation of our constitution. They’ve posted opinions here on Free Republic that those documents will soon be made public, and especially made available to lawyers challenging Obama’s eligibility before SCOTUS.
The Indiana Appeals Court furthermore lied about the circumstances surrounding Chester Arthur’s background. Barack Obama II has admitted to having been born a British subject. Chester Arthur hid the fact that his father was British when Chester was born in the USA; in fact, it was Leo Donofrio who uncovered that fact in December, 2008. Arthur burned his private papers to cover up the truth of his ineligibility for the Presidency as he was, in truth, a British subject.
It just demonstrates how desperate Democrats are to keep Obama in the White House that Indiana’s Appeal Court Justices must LIE concerning President Arthur being known as a British subject at the time of his Presidency. How outrageous! This is a feeble attempt to create precedence by rewriting history, something Liberals do all the time.