The answer/argument from the other side is “English common law” and Blackstone.
Well that's nice to know. Do you agree with that assessment?
It did indeed, and in many relevent cases, English rulings and Blackstone were cited.
Ah, I see.
I defer to greater minds...
The Framers Used Emer de Vattel, Not William Blackstone to Define a “Natural Born Citizen”
As James Brown Scott has correctly stated: "It is therefore to be expected that, when terms of municipal law are found in the Constitution, they are to be understood in the sense in which they were used in Blackstone's Commentaries; and when the law of nations is referred to, that its principles are to be understood in the sense in which Vattel defined them." James Brown Scott, The United States of America: A Study in International Organizations 439 (1920). There is little doubt that citizenship properly falls under the law of nations and not under the rules of municipal law.
A very informative article, IMO.
“The answer/argument from the other side is “English common law” and Blackstone.”
“Do you agree with that assessment? “
My personal opinion this is irrelevent, it’s what courts decide. The courts won’t overturn 110 yr old precedents like Wong Kim Ark, so they’d come done on the English common law interpretation that “natural-born citizen” is same as “citizen from birth”, just as Ankeny court did. I have no desire to debate whether that reasoning is right or wrong since it’s been rehashed enough.
I would agree on one point with those bringing these suits: It should at least be heard, adjudicated, decided and put to rest.