james, did you even read what the court said and how it described Vattel?? This was pure and perhaps intentional stupidity. “The Plaintiffs do not mention the above United States Supreme Court authority in their complaint or brief; they primarily rely instead on an eighteenth century treatise and quotations of Members of Congress made during the nineteenth century.” We know the SCOTUS has frequently and authoritively cited the Law of Nations. It’s not a random, irrelvant ‘treatise.’ Second, the court blows off the intent of the authors of the 14th amendment as “quotations of Members of Congress.” John Marshall is rolling over in his grave and passing wind at the Indiana appeals court.
Since the Roberts Court has denied all Obama eligibility appeals without comment, it is obvious that references to de Vattel and the Law of Nations in current Obama eligibility Petitions for Writs of Certiorari has carried no weight in influncing any four of the Justices that are required to hear an appeal.
American law is not based on the legal opinions of a Swiss citizen who never set foot in our nation. Natural born American citizens have always been capable of writing our own laws.
We're only discussing one decision and some specific, yet stupid quotes. What part of that do you not understand??
Since the Roberts Court has denied all Obama eligibility appeals without comment, it is obvious that references to de Vattel and the Law of Nations in current Obama eligibility Petitions for Writs of Certiorari has carried no weight in influncing any four of the Justices that are required to hear an appeal.
Again, we're talking about the Indiana appeals court decision. Let's focus.
American law is not based on the legal opinions of a Swiss citizen who never set foot in our nation. Natural born American citizens have always been capable of writing our own laws.
Vattel's influence on the founders and the SCOTUS has been documented plenty of times. Are you really going to play the stupid game??