The US Supreme Court has said the meaning is found in common law. Not Vattel, but common law.
You don’t get a vote. It has been decided.
Until you understand that, your side will do nothing but lose, lose, lose. Times close to 100 now...
... and then went on to cite Vattel nearly verbatim. Clearly, "common law" did not mean English common law. We'd fought wars to separate ourselves from England, you know.
Yes it has, by our masters and overlords.
Make you happy too, eh? What is your position on Lawrence vs Texas, Kelo, do or will you defend those decisions here so passionately like you do your boys obvious ineligibility?
Show me just ONE SCOTUS case that has addressed specifically NBC since the ratification of the 14th. WKA was deemed by Judge Grey to be “AS MUCH A CITIZEN AS THE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN”. He was not deemed a NBC and that fact you can NOT refute.
Yes, in WKA Gray cited Minor:
“At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”
You don’t get a vote. It has been decided.
Until you understand that, your side will do nothing but lose, lose, lose. Times close to 100 now...
Ah, and here you show your true nature by siding with the most Tyrannical and Lawless of the branches of our government: The Judicial*. Not only do they ignore the Constitution when it suits them, but the proclaim and declare themselves to be above it, that it means what they say it means, and then they tell everyone else that they fall under the Constitution.
Consider, if you will, what the Supreme Court has said regarding this simple sentence:
"No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."
So important did the founders think the prohibition, to prevent unpredictable and arbitrary governmental conduct that they imposed the prohibition upon the states as well in Article 1, Section 10.
Add to this one instance things like Keelo v New London, wherein the Judiciary shows the utmost contempt for property rights and allows Government-sponsored larceny by ignoring the Fifth Amendment's "for public use" phrase. The expansion of the "exigent cases" wherein "Law Enforcement" needs no warrant in order to search or seize property. The absolute failure of the Judiciary to apply, as written, the law against Conspiracy Against Rights against such organizations as Universities which qualify for their prohibitions against BOTH the freedom of speech AND the Right to Keep and Bear Arms [though part of this lies on the heads of Prosecutors as well].
QED.
*Many make a big deal about how there are supposed to be "checks and balances" the government via its branches, but what is a check on the Judicial?