Just to re-state the obvious (and the article does a pretty good job of it).
You are supporting what the article has termed the Vattel Theory.
The SC could take the case and determine that the Vattel Theory is not the governing law, but something else is.
They could, for instance, decide that Natural Born means any citizen who is a citizen at birth, as opposed to one
who gains citizenship via immigration and naturalization.
Such an interpretation would mwan that if Obama was born in Hawaii then he is legally president.
I say this because the term Natural Born has not been well defined in law up to this point.
I’m a bit surprised that the 110th Congress didn’t pass a law stipulating what Natural Born meant.
I still strongly believe the SC doesn’t want to touch this with a 10 foot poll. I think the best (only) way for birthers to make progress on their project is by putting eligibility tests into law in the several states.
But, because this is such a fringe issue there has been no progress on that, and it looks like Obama will have a second term, illegal or not, and never be forced to prove ANYTHING.
If they took the case and examined the theory that Vattel’s concept of what it is to be a “natural born citizen” would they not have to examine the framers’ intention in choosing the phrase?
If they took the case and examined the theory that Vattel’s concept of what it is to be a “natural born citizen” would they not have to examine the framers’ intention in choosing the phrase?
I would question that there is needed a law to define a ‘natural born citizen’i.e. NBC. NBC is explicit in the Constitution as a requirement. I can realize that depending upon a persons rationale and intent arguments occur as to a definition preceding the application of the word, but to make a law overriding the adopted word in the Constitution would be out of order. Should we need a law to define ‘ Blessings of Liberty’? I grant that it would have been very worthwhile for the Founders to have said something like ‘ natural born citizen as defined in Vatelle’s Law of Nations’. It is my belief that the Founders felt no such need because the meaning of NBC was inherent in the reference to the Law of Nations in Article I Sec. 8.
I would question that there is needed a law to define a ‘natural born citizen’i.e. NBC. NBC is explicit in the Constitution as a requirement. I can realize that depending upon a persons rationale and intent arguments occur as to a definition preceding the application of the word, but to make a law overriding the adopted word in the Constitution would be out of order. Should we need a law to define ‘ Blessings of Liberty’? I grant that it would have been very worthwhile for the Founders to have said something like ‘ natural born citizen as defined in Vatelle’s Law of Nations’. It is my belief that the Founders felt no such need because the meaning of NBC was inherent in the reference to the Law of Nations in Article I Sec. 8.