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.
Sure looked like it when you quoted a bunch of "law of nations" quotes not capitalized, including the "writers of the law of nations." Glad you have backed off of that.
"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.
Suggest you look up what a "strawman argument" is.
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.
Are you at all aware of how books are usually cited? Book titles are generally capitalized. Note a case from 1883, and another from 1890. When specifically citing Vattel's book, the name of the book is capitalized. Breaking up your long post - see next.
If you agree the 14th amendment follows common law, then you agree that born on the soil means natural born, as the common law says. Glad we agree on this.
WKA affirmed that NBC = born in the country to parents who were its citizens.
Saying it more often doesn't make it true. Justice Gray quoted several sources, some conflicting. He quoted many sources that said the US follows common law, that "natural born subject" and "natural born citizen" were analogous, etc. But you don't like those so you ignore them.
"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.
At birth yes, but when Kenya became independent in 1963, that British citizenship was gone. Sr. became a Kenyan citizen, and 0bama no longer had the option of British citizenship (at the grand old age of 2 years). So as an adult, there was no question of British citizenship. Good try.
by some accounts, Obama was in Kenya when he would have been old enough to preserve his Kenyan citizenship.
And what evidence do you have that this occurred? This is typical of the "natural born" or "birth certificate" crowd. "I speculate x could have happened, therefore it did happen." He would have had to formally renounce, in writing, at a US consulate or embassy. So there would be a paper trail had this actually occurred. Nice fantasy, though.
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.
Gee, funny, I don't see them affirming that they agree with the author's opinion. I see them saying it is the duty of the courts to decide the proper application of the law.
"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:
Your own citation shows you are wrong. That law does is not about "grades" of citizens, it deals with those born in outlying possessions, who are called "nationals" and their children.
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.
One of the few places we agree.
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.
Trying to be clever, but you're failing. You keep claiming Minor defined NBC, but Minor specifically said it would not resolve the doubt. Scalia was clear that much US law is interpreted by going back to common law, particularly where the language echoed phrases from English common law. "Natural born" is clear in common law, and Rogers v Bellei and Ankeny are clear that we follow the common law.