[Anitius Severinus Boethius]

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/169/649/case.html

Search for “contemplates two sources of citizenship” on the page. It will take you to the direct quote and citation.

Over and over we hear that the Supreme Court has never made a ruling on “Natural Born Citizen” as defined by Vattel, but if you read the decision and the dissent in this case, you will see that Vattel’s definition was at the core what this case is about.

Those in dissent argue for Vattel’s definition. Those who made up the majority decided against it.

Could the ruling be overturned? Sure, it’s rare but it does happen.

But it is a disingenuous ploy to declare that this hasn’t been handled by the court before.

[Godebert]

In defining what an Article II “natural born Citizen” is, we do not seek to read into the Constitution that which was not intended and written there by the Framers. Despite popular belief, the Fourteenth Amendment does not convey the status of “natural born Citizen” in its text nor in its intent. Some add an implication to the actual wording of the Fourteenth Amendment by equating the amendment’s “citizen” to Article II’s “natural born Citizen.” But nowhere does the 14th Amendment confer “natural born citizen” status. The words simply do not appear there, but some would have us believe they are implied. But the wording of the Amendment is clear in showing that it confers citizenship only and nothing more.

Neither the 14th Amendment nor Wong Kim Ark make one a Natural Born Citizen

[AmericanVictory]

How is Vattel’s definition at the “core” of a case which has nothing to do with presidential eligibility? It does not seem to follow from what the case is about.