What theory??? The words of the SCOTUS speak for themselves.
ELSEWHERE is NOT Vattel in any citizenship case at all where somebody was born inside America.
Nonsense. Let's look at Justice Waite's (which Gray quoted) unanimous definition side by side with Vattel's. I've underlined the passages that match:
Justice Waite: "... 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 ..."
Vattel: The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.
Nearly each word of Vattel's definition is used and none of Waite's additional language changes the meaning. Perhaps Waite was simply recognizing what Justice Marshall said in The Venus when citing Vattel by name and verbatim with this same passage on citizenship:
Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, saysPlus, I have already shown you where the 14th amendment and natural born citizenship is the same thing, in cases before, during, and after Wong Kim Ark."The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights."
Well, no. Nothing you've posted says this at all.
There you go FIBBING again. You have falsely combined two things to mislead conservatives about Rubio. The Minor case was quoted by the Wong Kim Ark judges about the need to go elsewhere for what natural born citizen meant, not to back up your silly Vattle stuff about what a natural born citizen is. Which is why you don’t put a link to what Judge Waite said, and tell what case it is in, and what the basic facts of the case were.
Plus, like the other fibber Vattle Birther here, you quote the Venus stuff which was 1830 something and not even about natural born citizen stuff. Which is also why you don’t tell the people here what the Venus case was about, give them the date, and give them a link, which is because you know if you do you will just bust your own self out.
Plus, yes I have shown you where the 14th and natural born citizen are the same thing, but you just want to pretend that I haven’t because it proves you are wrong. It is up above here, and was a case before Wong Kim Ark, in Wong Kim Ark, and in a case after Wong kim Ark. You did not dispute any of that because you can’t. It’s in English and is easy to read.
Which all of this is why REAL conservative lawyers like Mark Levin say about Vattle Birther PRETEND lawyers on the Internet:
I want you to listen to me on my social sites. Marco Rubio was born in Miami, Florida. He is a natural born United States citizen. And if I get any more of this Birther crap up there. . .this is a warning, and I don’t care who you are, you’re going to be banned. Okay? This is a site I put up for rational people. Marco Rubio was born in Miami, Florida in 1940, excuse me, 1971. He’s 40. There’s no debate. So take that Birther crap somewhere else. Just a warning. . .got it? I’m not into all that crap. You can go somewhere else for that.
Mark Levin
Sept. 28, 2011
Get that??? He said there’s NO DEBATE. Your inability or refusal to read and understand something does not make a worthwhile theory. Sooo, why don’t you stop being a Vattle Birther and quit misleading and giving false and bad legal advice about conservatives like Mark RubiO???