No kidding. He just happens to be named frequently in The Venus.
This case (not about "natural born," which you seemed to find so important re Rogers v. Bellei) is about American citizen merchants who are living in England, when the War of 1812 commences, and their cargo is seized by a US privateer.
I didn't claim The Venus was about "natural born." I cited it to show you that Vattel was connected with the law of nations, whether capitalized or uncapitalized. I believe this is what YOU call a strawman response.
That aside, your quote from the case undermines your argument because it talks about "retaining their original character or partaking of the character of the nation in which they reside" ... when this is coupled with the Vattel citation on natural citizenship, it still says that the condition of a child naturally follows the political status of the father. This still means Obama would be a British-Kenyan and not a U.S. citizen by any natural means.
You are once again relying on a quote from Vattel, where that particular part of the quote has nothing to do with the case.
You need to reconcile that with the Supreme Court. They went on to say, "Such a person, says this author, becomes a member of the new society, at least as a permanent inhabitant, and is a kind of citizen of an inferior order from the native citizens, ..." Under this doctrine, even if Barak Sr. had expressed an intention to live permanently in the U.S., at best he would be a kind of citizen of an "inferior order" of which his child would naturally follow. This would make Obama an inferior citizen, on which we can all agree.
Children born in the US (usual exceptions) are citizens.
Right, but they are not natural born citizens unless they are born in the U.S. to citizen parents (with NO exceptions).
You were trying to argue that 0bama wasn't a citizen because his father wasn't "domiciled" enough.
No, I didn't say anything about having "enough" domicile. I said his parents had NO domicile as was defined by the SCOTUS. Barak Sr. was kicked out of this country.His mother married a second foreign national and left the U.S. Where do we find any parent with an intention to have a permanent abode in the U.S.???
Common law gives jus soli.
But it does NOT define NBC. The only "common law" we have is through the 14th amendment and later statutes, but these comes with exception and/or other stipulations.
Nope. I never disputed that Vattel wrote a book called Law of Nations. Just debunking your idea that every time "law of nations" is mentioned it refers to the book. It doesn't.
that aside, your quote from the case undermines your argument because it talks about "retaining their original character or partaking of the character of the nation in which they reside" ...
It undermines nothing - he cited a chunk of Vattel and went on to discuss what related to the case - with citizens living in another country. Read the case and see the point of the case.
when this is coupled with the Vattel citation on natural citizenship, it still says that the condition of a child naturally follows the political status of the father.
Once again, he quoted several paragraphs of Vattel, and discussed citizens living in another country. He did not deal with "natural born." You may notice that several things are quoted in cases (WKA with many quotes on common law, but briefly mentions the Napoleonic code) but the judges do not always decide the way the quote argues. In this case, part of the quote had nothing to do with the case, so he could scarcely affirm it in the decision. (In WKA, the judge did affirm it in accord with common law. In Rogers v. Bellie, and in Ankeny as well.)
This still means Obama would be a British-Kenyan and not a U.S. citizen by any natural means.
Do you seriously believe this? There are so many wrong parts to this piece of idiocy, I don't know where to start
They went on to say, "Such a person, says this author, becomes a member of the new society, at least as a permanent inhabitant, and is a kind of citizen of an inferior order from the native citizens, ..."
Note, the court is careful to attribute the opinion to the author, the court does not say it adopts this opinion.
Under this doctrine, even if Barak Sr. had expressed an intention to live permanently in the U.S., at best he would be a kind of citizen of an "inferior order" of which his child would naturally follow. This would make Obama an inferior citizen, on which we can all agree.
WE can definitely agree on the "inferior" as a matter of his ideas, politics, behavior, etc. However, US law does not provide for "inferior citizens."
I said his parents had NO domicile as was defined by the SCOTUS. Barak Sr. was kicked out of this country. His mother married a second foreign national and left the U.S. Where do we find any parent with an intention to have a permanent abode in the U.S.???
His mother was a citizen. She did not need (obviously not by US law, but also not by your Vattel standards) to meet any such conditions. It also sounds like you're arguing that she knew in 1961 that she was going to remarry and leave the US. Forgive me that I don't bow before your time machine mind reading of what Stanley Ann knew in 1961 about her future.
"Common law gives jus soli."
But it does NOT define NBC. The only "common law" we have is through the 14th amendment and later statutes, but these comes with exception and/or other stipulations.
Jus soli does define NBC. Common law is that jus soli = natural born. As to your last sentences, that makes no sense whatsoever, and one fairly recent SCOTUS decision (Rogers v Bellei) disagrees with you, in addition to the very recent Ankeny decision. Oh, and Justice Scalia also diagrees with you. He says much of our law is based on common law
And what they understood when they ratified this Constitution was that they were affirming the rights of Englishmen. So to know what the Constitution meant at the time, you have to know what English law was at the time.So who do I think knows more of what the law is? You, or Justice Scalia? I'll go with Scalia on this.