Ho, ho, ho.
Dragging in French Swiss legal theorist as if his opinion has some applicability to American law! (See my tagline.)
Vattel is recounting civil or Roman law, which forms the basis of the Napoleonic code and that of most European countries. Under this law system citizenship is a matter of inheritance, not birth.
The law codes of the US are based on English common law. Blackstone is the great commentator there, and he disagrees flatly with Vattel.
The Supreme Court, in several decisions, considered and rejected Vattel’s civil law basis for determining citizenship and adopted Blackstone’s common law approach. This is especially so since the adoption of the 14th amendment.
So far, I’ve posted opinions from US attorneys general and decisions of the Supreme Court. You’ve posted comments in letters from Founders and commentary from obscure foreign legal philosophers.
You need to find some more effective ammo, dude.
BTW, it sounds like our present Supreme Court agrees with me. They don’t see a legal issue in this case.
Evidently you think this is some kind of childish game.
I do not.
Your obfuscation and denial is more akin to Obama and his minions than that of a patriot. There is nothing wrong with an argument, provided it is done in a constructive manner. I would be happy to argue any substantive and pertinent points you wish to make within the context of our respective references.
That said, having now reviewed additional posts by you it is fairly clear that your sole objective is to attempt to deride persons who are supportive of the Obama eligibilty issue. Therefore, it is unlikely that I will find much time to engage in any further communication with an Obama sycophant such as yourself.
BTW, it sounds like our present Supreme Court agrees with me. They don’t see a legal issue in this case.
BTW, why did SCOTUS distribute the Wrotnowski application (basically the identical case) to conference? Given your comment, clearly you do not know. It requires a basic understanding of legal procedure.