[WhiskeyX]

You are being condescending in the way you refer cases to us as if we had never seen them before. Many of us have seen them before. Many of us understand the cases. At least one or more of us have been acquainted with some of these cases long before Obama reached adult age.

You are also not helping yourself or your argument by using strawman arguments, or by harping on Vattel as if he were supposed to be somehow indispensable to understanding the origin of the natural born citizen clause. He isn't. He simply added his own comments to those of the men whose works he interpreted and the state of customs he was observing. People who could not read or write knew what it meant to be an alien and born the child of a natural father.

[Abd al-Rahiim]

You are being condescending in the way you refer cases to us as if we had never seen them before. Many of us have seen them before. Many of us understand the cases.

When I mentioned Lynch v. Clarke, it was not my intention to be condescending to anyone. I was only pointing out that unlike Minor and Wong Kim Ark, Lynch actually cites de Vattel numerous times while still reaching the same conclusion that Justice Gray did half a century later. If you have read the case before and understand it, then please explain why you did not find its dicta convincing. Did Vice Chancellor Sandford feel compelled to protect anyone?

You are also not helping yourself or your argument by using strawman arguments, or by harping on Vattel as if he were supposed to be somehow indispensable to understanding the origin of the natural born citizen clause. He isn't. He simply added his own comments to those of the men whose works he interpreted and the state of customs he was observing. People who could not read or write knew what it meant to be an alien and born the child of a natural father.

You should tell some of your FRiends here that de Vattel isn't "indispensable to understanding the origin of the natural born citizen clause," not me. My apologies if I strawmanned you personally, though.

Yesterday, you wrote to me, "The Founding Fathers did not define the terminology, because it was unnecessary to do so. Anyone with half of a brain knew a person was born with the father's allegiance, hence natural born allegiance and natural born citizenship that goes along with the allegiance." Your position is consistent, as you just stated that "People who could not read or write knew what it meant to be an alien and born the child of a natural father."

But your position fails to explain why so many Judges and Justices reach the same conclusions in their dicta. Your position fails to explain why Chief Justice Waite consulted "common law" to define the unnecessary-to-define phrase "natural-born citizen" in his dicta to Minor. How come they don't see what you see, if "anyone with half of a brain" ought to be able to see what you see?