I'm not going to spend a lot of time on what you've posted this time around since I've already debunked most everything you've posted. That you list Ankeny as a "SCOTUS" case pretty much destroys your petty attempts to be dismissive with your comments about "reading comprehension" and how something supposably "escapes" me. It just shows how sloppy your arguments are.
They are obviously NOT universal principles, since England did not subscribe to these principles.
They did according to Blackstone:
THE law of nations is a system of rules, deducible by natural reason, and established by universal consent among the civilized inhabitants of the world; in order to decide all disputes, to regulate all ceremonies and civilities, and to insure the observance frequently occur between two or more independent states, and the individuals belonging to each.How many errors can we find?
IN arbitrary states this law, wherever it contradicts or is not provided for by the municipal law of the country, is enforced by the royal power : but since in England no royal power can introduce a new law, or suspend the execution of the old, therefore the law of nations (wherever any question arises which is properly the object of its jurisdiction) is here adopted in its full extent by the common law, and is held to be a part of the law of the land.
link
YOU have found none. You need to re-read what I wrote. I was talking about the original ACT and how it was expanded beyond its original intentions through Calvin's Case. You're response completely misses that point.
And just where you do see "obligations demanded of a monarch" in natural born citizenship?
What the HELL are you talking about?? Do you NOT see the word NOT in front of "obligations demanded of a monarch"???? It's this kind of sloppiness that undermines everything you post. You miss key words and make mistake after mistake after mistake. You would have saved yourself a lot of embarrassment by NOT returning to this thread.
THE law of nations is a system of rules, deducible by natural reason, and established by universal consent among the civilized inhabitants of the world; in order to decide all disputes, to regulate all ceremonies and civilities, and to insure the observance frequently occur between two or more independent states, and the individuals belonging to each. IN arbitrary states this law, wherever it contradicts or is not provided for by the municipal law of the country, is enforced by the royal power : but since in England no royal power can introduce a new law, or suspend the execution of the old, therefore the law of nations (wherever any question arises which is properly the object of its jurisdiction) is here adopted in its full extent by the common law, and is held to be a part of the law of the land.
Back to claiming "law of nations" always refers to Vattel, are you? Newsflash - "law of nations" is a body of law. You keep trying to say that Vattel = common law, but it doesn't.
You need to re-read what I wrote. I was talking about the original ACT and how it was expanded beyond its original intentions through Calvin's Case. You're response completely misses that point.
My response points up some of your errors, which you don't want to acknowledge. I guess to you, that's "missing the point."