Replies

It does not matter how many books Vattel wrote or how many times he was quoted. Vattel did not make US law.

I agree that law does not change the Constitution but when the Constitution specifically enumerates the power of Congress to set the rules of naturalization, that is a direct exercise of Constitutional authority.

The term “naturalization” has a meaning of granting the rights and privileges of a citizen to an alien. Congress is specifically empowered by Article 1 Section 8 to “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization”.

The RULES include who is and is not a citizen at birth. A citizen at birth is a “naturally born” citizen as they have never needed nor required to be naturalized. This in no way alters the Constitutional requirements for President.

You are again projecting on to me something that I have never said. I have never altered the meaning of words and have been clear from the very beginning. US laws govern US citizens. That authority is specifically enumerated within the Constitution as a power of Congress. Congress has exercised it’s Constitutional authority per title 8 section 1401.

Your assertion that Congress and SCOTUS have attempted to change the requirements of the office of President is false.

It does not matter how many books Vattel wrote or how many times he was quoted. Vattel did not make US law.

He is responsible for creating the nation. Had he not wrote his book, we likely would still be part of England. "American Independence was then and there born."- John Adams.

John Adams:

And what was it that had Motivated James Otis to take up this cause of Independence?

The "Rules of Naturalization" do not govern the status of "natural" citizens. They are already "natural citizens" and do not require naturalization.

Exactly right, they have no effect on Citizens, so the obvious corollary to your statement is that the laws ONLY AFFECT ALIENS.

The RULES include who is and is not a citizen at birth.

But that is because Congress PUT that there.

A citizen at birth is a “naturally born” citizen as they have never needed nor required to be naturalized.

Then what do you call the law making them a citizen? A "Natural born" law? Again, it equates to congress redefining the term, which I think you will admit is not tolerable. That they have to fill out no paperwork of naturalization is immaterial. That they have no ceremony is immaterial.

This in no way alters the Constitutional requirements for President.

If Congress passes a law which CHANGES the requirements for the Presidency from what they were originally, to something different, then it is altering the constitution without going through the amendment process, and it is strictly forbidden.

Congress can pass a law "naturalizing" all the citizens of Belize. Will this make such citizens "natural" citizens? No. The idea is ridiculous. So is the Idea that Congress can "naturalize" others, at birth, or otherwise, by whatever criteria, and have them regarded as being "natural" citizens.