Do you honestly believe there is any court today in this country that will cite the Vattel theory as an authority in defining natural born citizenship? You can’t even even cite a case in the past 100 years that uses Vattel to define nbc. It is obvious that the courts have relied on English common law rather than some 18th century Swiss philosopher when defining nbc. I suggest you acquaint yourself with SCOTUS cases such Wong Kim Ark or Rogers v. Bellei rather than Vattel if you are interested in the correct definition of nbc in USA jurisprudence. Until you become more aware of the correct legal definitions, you should refrain from posting wrong and misleading information
“I suggest you acquaint yourself with SCOTUS cases such Wong Kim Ark”
Wong Kim Ark was affirmed a citizen because his parents were permanent residents and domiciled in the US.
WKA was NEVER affirmed a natural born citizen.
If Obama was born in Hawaii..it does not matter. His alleged father was not a permanent resident.
“law of nations [would be] strictly observed.” 14 J. Cont.Cong. 635 (1779).
“of high importance to the peace of America that she observe the law of nations.” John Jay
“the Constitution was framed in firm reliance upon the premise, frequently articulated, that ... the Law of Nations in all its aspects familiar to men of learning in the eighteenth century was accepted by the framers, expressly or implicitly, as a constituent part of the national law of the United States” Dickinson, The Law of Nations as Part of the National Law of the United States.
“We think it clear beyond quibble that since the founding of our nation adherence to the law of nations” Finzer v. Barry
“It is also clear that the founders, who explicitly gave Congress the power to enforce adherence to the standards of the law of nations” Finzer v. Barry
In 1781 Congress recommended to the states to pass laws to punish infractions of the law of nations. This was obtained from Ware v. Hylton, Supreme Court 1796 . Vattel’s Law of Nations is frequently quoted. This info was not obtained from a far left website.
The law of nations forms an integral part of the common law, and a review of the history surrounding the adoption of the Constitution demonstrates that it became a part of the common law of the United States upon the adoption of the Constitution.” Filartiga v. Pena-Irala, - Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit 1980
“an act of congress ought never to be construed to violate the law of nations,” Chief Justice Marshall
“For two centuries we have affirmed that the domestic law of the United States recognizes the law of nations” Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain - Supreme Court 2004
The law of nations, as understood by Justice Story in 1824, has not changed” Chief Justice Rehnquist
“It is also well settled that the law of nations is part of federal common law.” United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted June 8, 1992.
Decided October 21, 1992.
“All these birthers pull out these quotes without really knowing what they are posting.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/~seesac/
Account Banned.