Vattel is one who the SCOTUS has specifically quoted on multiple occasions. Also from this same ruling, we find Justice Marshall quoting Vattel's definition of natural citizenship with great approval:
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, says"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."
The court clearly says here that being native = being born in the country to citizen parents. Further it quotes that children naturally follow the condition of their fathers. So much for common law. Under this definition, Obama is a British-Kenyan Subject.
Before you even start arguing domicile, there's the little matter of a mother who was a US citizen.
It is a "little matter" since the Supreme Court has said in at least two different cases that the child naturally follows the condition of the father, one of which I just quoted. Second, why are you bringing up Obama's mama's citizenship if the 14th amendment doesn't look at the citizenship of the parents?? You don't seem to be able to make up your mind as to whether Obama should be a citizen by jus soli or jus sanguinis now.
It is therefore of some importance to inquire how far the writers on that law consider the subjects of one power residing within the territory of another, as retaining their original character or partaking of the character of the nation in which they reside.So he is quoting Vattel about aliens living in another country to determine if the ship was properly seized. Not about "natural born" at all.
You are very inconsistent - when the court quotes Vattel for any purpose at all, you insist the court has accepted Vattel's definition of "natural born". When the court quotes anyone who declares that we follow English common law about "natural born" you discount it, even when the case is about citizenship at birth. Not very intellectually honest, is it?
"Before you even start arguing domicile, there's the little matter of a mother who was a US citizen."
It is a "little matter" since the Supreme Court has said in at least two different cases that the child naturally follows the condition of the father, one of which I just quoted. Second, why are you bringing up Obama's mama's citizenship if the 14th amendment doesn't look at the citizenship of the parents?? You don't seem to be able to make up your mind as to whether Obama should be a citizen by jus soli or jus sanguinis now.
You are once again relying on a quote from Vattel, where that particular part of the quote has nothing to do with the case. The judges in the case say nothing of the kind, but rather stick to the issue at hand.
You seem not to be able to hold more than one idea at a time. Children born in the US (usual exceptions) are citizens. You were trying to argue that 0bama wasn't a citizen because his father wasn't "domiciled" enough. It wouldn't matter a whit if his father landed at the airport, fathered baby Hussain, and left 10 minutes later. If he was born here, he's a natural born US citizen. Beyond that, since you seemed to be claiming he wasn't a citizen at all, we don't even need to go into "how domiciled was he." His mother was a US citizen. FYI, there are various routes to citizenship: