Yes, I have read that and I STILL DISAGREE. And so will the Supreme Court today (as I belive today’s hearing is based on this.)
The reason is that the argument uses the very weakest claim, that to “natural law”. (Please recall that Judge Bork’s attempts to explain this concept was one of the main reasons he was eventually voted down in his confirmation hearing.)
Natural Law is an interesting concept, but by it’s very nature it’s not written. Thus, to a legal system totally based on writings, it’s a the poor cousin of real law. We see our current SC justices are happy to even site European Law, but natural law hasn’t made an appearance in any decision for many many years.
The fellows argument is that the fathers citizenship is more important than the mothers, based on natural law. If there were no REAL LAWS on this it might be an interesting argument. But as there is a vast body of law regarding citzenship, and the vast majority of it today views men and women as equivelent, it is a very weak argument.
He is essentially arguing that the way people thought about things cica 1785 is knowable in the abscence of any written laws, and applicable.
Even his one citation (as quoted on the blog contradicts his own point, that natural law is supreme. The quote from the circa 1780 law book is “The laws have decided this question in several countries, and their regulations must be followed”
Well, we do have laws and regulations and Donofrio’s weird “two class of citizenship” ideas are not codified in them. He alone seems to have figured this out in 2008!!
I don’t find that compelling and neither will the court.
Defronio’s case has absolutely nothing to do with the natural law. You are getting confused due to semantics. The term “natural born” has nothing whatsoever to do with natural law.