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.
Sorry, but never made the claim that every time it is mentioned that it refers to the book. You keep falling back on a strawman. Vattel's influence is pretty apparent and we have other citings that match-up almost verbatim with what he's written. This is simply fact.
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.
This is still a strawman. This case was only cited to show that Vattel is positively linked to uncapitalized citations of law of nations. This means that law of nations does NOT have to be capitalized to be linked with Vattel. The fact that the SCOTUS relied so much on Vattel for principles of citizenship is a nice bonus. The same definition of natural citizenship Marshall used is recast in Minor, minus a specific citation. Otherwise, all the criteria matches. This is simply fact.
(In WKA, the judge did affirm it in accord with common law. In Rogers v. Bellie, and in Ankeny as well.)
All these cases affirmed was that the 14th amendment follows common law (up to a point). WKA affirmed that NBC = born in the country to parents who were its citizens.
Do you seriously believe this?
Why would I not?? The definitions speak for themselves.
If 0bama was born in Hawaii, he's a natural born US citizen. The courts say so, the 14th amendment says so.
Absolutely false and you know it.
He could not, in any case, be a British citizen.
This is false and Obama's own website said his citizenship was governed by British law at birth.
He could not be a Kenyan citizen, since he would have to formally declare Kenyan citizenship at the age of 21 and renounce US citizenship. No one has yet shown any indication this happened.
Wrong. He had until age 23 and, by some accounts, Obama was in Kenya when he would have been old enough to preserve his Kenyan citizenship.
Note, the court is careful to attribute the opinion to the author, the court does not say it adopts this opinion.
Wrong. The court refers to this "opinion" as a guiding principle to follow:
In deciding whether a person has obtained the right of an acquired domicile, it is not to be expected that much if any assistance should be derived from mere elementary writers on the law of nations. They can only lay down the general principles of law, and it becomes the duty of courts to establish rules for the proper application of those principles.
The "inferior order" of citizens citation is used TWICE in this case. Evidently, it was not just a passing citation.
However, US law does not provide for "inferior citizens."
Yeah, actually it does. It separates persons into citizens and "nationals" ...
Sec. 308. [8 U.S.C. 1408] Unless otherwise provided in section 301 of this title, the following shall be nationals, but not citizens of the United States at birth: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 depends on where Obama was born. If he was born in Hawaii as is claimed, then his citizenship is due to this statute:
A person born in Hawaii on or after April 30, 1900, is a citizen of the United States at birth.
If he was born outside the U.S., then his mother needed to be age 19 or older to pass on her citizenship to him OR she needed to be legally unwed.
It also sounds like you're arguing that she knew in 1961 that she was going to remarry and leave the US.
Well, no. We know from when she alleged to have married Barak Sr., she didn't plan to stay in the U.S.
Susan Blake, another high-school classmate, said that during a brief visit in 1961, Dunham was excited about her husband's plans to return to Kenya.
"We all had June Cleaver as our role models, and she was blazing new trails for herself," said Blake, a former Mercer Island city councilwoman.
link to story.
Barak Sr.'s immigration file also mentions there were plans to return to Kenya.
Jus soli does define NBC.
Only when accompanied by jus sanguinis. This is how the Supreme Court defined it in at least TWO landmark cases. Your Scalia quote is not specifically about citizenship. It's hypocritical for you to complain about The Venus citation and then for you to rely on out-of-court statements made by Scalia on his very general philosophy. I believe I've found Scalia citing law of nations or Vattel in other threads. Bellei also does not undermine the Minor definition of NBC. Insisting that Wong and Bellei do so is a matter of two Wongs that don't make you right.