Dude, you are just torturing yourself with this stuff. I went to your sites and it was like way too difficult. Let me simplify it.
Should a court hear the NBC stuff, they can use any Learned Treatise they want in trying to decipher the framers intent. Period. They can look at Vattel, they can look at the Chinese Book of Real Hard Legal Problems, the Kama Sutra, whatever. If it is a Learned Treatise, they can look at it. Or not.
Courts do this all the time. They look at books like Prosser on Torts, AmJurs, Corpus Juris Secundums, Brill on Damages, Farnsworth on Contracts.
But, heres the skinny. These books are not law. They are what is called secondary authority. They have persuasive value only. They do not provide for binding authority. And they will NEVER do so.
Primary, or binding authority comes from previous judicial decisions, statues, regs, and common law, which is also judge made law. I separate the two prior judicial decision because there isn’t really a Federal Common Law.
To take these treatises, and to try to transform them into primary binding authority is just a waste of time and energy. You can cite it to judge. That isfine. But you can’t jump to a legal conclusion based on it. Not today. Not ever.
A court may well find that Vattel is the Bible on this. I doubt it. But it don’t matter. Because you can’t read Vattel and say, “That dang Obama is a usurper. He ain’t even a natural born citizen.” Not based on Vattel or any other book. Period, friggin period. So dissect Vattel, dissect all the statements by anybody you think relevant and it still ain’t binding primary authority unless it comes from decided cases, statutes, regs, or common law in a limited way.
And in our country, “Natural Law” isn’t law. There is kinda an exception, but unless you plan on cannibalizing someone when you are stranded or shipwrecked, it pretty much ain’t gonna apply.
But here is some binding, primary authority. It can be “over-turned”, but right now it is probably the best thing out there:
United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898)
This post 14th Amendment case is important both because it provides a broad survey of citizenship law and the legal framework through which the Constitution views citizenship, and because this decision is cited by numerous other cases.
[An alien parent’s] allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Coke, 6a, ’strong enough to make a natural subject, for, if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject’
The Wong court also said:
“Subject’ and ‘citizen’ are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives; and though the term ‘citizen’ seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, ’subjects,’ for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.’
and
…every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
III. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.
United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898)
The net impact of all this is, if you are born here, you are pretty much going to be a citizen, and a native born citizen is a natural born citizen.
This point has not been decided on point for the presidency, and you can raise some other issues, but this ought to be giving you a real strong clue where it is going.
Obama was born in the USA, his mom was a citizen,and frankly I don’t give a hoot if his daddy was a Russian spy who knelt and kissed Khrushev’s ring and pledged everlasting allegiance to Mother Russia, Obama is a citizen.
Learn to live with it.
parsy, who feels sorry that you guys are just flagellating yourselves to this degree.
So you go on to ramble and totally disregard the quotes from the early court justices & actual congressional records that your traffic law clerk twisted to make his case, but when I expose them they are irrelevant? You then end with the erroneous WKA ruling as if it is actually law. That shows how ignorant you really are.
Parsi, you are truly laughable(yes I am laughing at you, not with you) and I suggest you stick to writing your sick little ditties making fun of people because educating yourself in American history and the truth of our founding is obviously far beyond your capabilities.