I’ve refuted this list to you before:
“THE VENUS, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (Marshall, C.J. concurring) (cites Vattel’s definition of Natural Born Citizen)
SHANKS V. DUPONT, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830) (same definition without citing Vattel)
MINOR V. HAPPERSETT, 88 U.S.162,167-168 ( 1875) (same definition without citing Vattel)
EX PARTE REYNOLDS, 1879, 5 Dill., 394, 402 (same definition and cites Vattel)
UNITED STATES V WARD, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D. Cal. 1890) (same definition and cites Vattel.)”
The Venus doesn’t mention NBC. Shanks and Minor do not use Vattel’s definition. The other 2 I haven’t found, but since your first 3 don’t say what you claim, I’m skeptical.
You have stated that both sides have equal validity yet you choose to side with obama, why?
You: I’ve refuted this list to you before:...The Venus doesn’t mention NBC.
And doing a piss poor job of it.
Chief Justice Marshall cite's de Vattel by NAME and his definition of a Natural Born Citizen. Here is Venus.
"Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says, 'the citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or indigenes, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.' 'The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the state, while they reside there, and they are obliged to defendit, because it grants"
[Page 12 U.S. 253, 290]
-end snip-
- - - - - - - - - - -
"To: Mr Rogers
He used two words, "Naturels" and "Indigenes". The Royal Dictionary from near the period in question, indicates that the two words may *both* be translated as "naturals", but Naturels may also be translated as "natives". The way they are used in both the original French and the way the translated terms are used, it's clear they are being used as synonyms. Thus natives and naturals, but used to refer to the "citoyn" or "citizen" in the previous sentence. Thus "natives or natural born citizens is not a bad translation. It's certainy better than the one which left "indigenes" untranslated. When it was finally translated in the 1793 eddition, it was not translates as "indignious" but, as one would expect from the dictionary, as "natural" born. Our founders did not need the earlier translation. They could read the original French for themselves. Dr. Franklin was particularly adept in French, having found it useful with the French ladies, some of whom were quite well educated, when he was representing the "rebels" there.
- - - - - - - -