[semimojo]

The SCOTUS, members of the founding generation, quoted in it’s 1814 Venus Merchantman decision the entire 212th paragraph from Emmerich De Vatels Law of Nations that defined a natural born citizen as having two citizen parents and born on the soil of the nation to define an NBC for purposes of that decision.

On the one hand we have a quote from Vatel in a decision only tangentially related to NBC, and on the other we have the clear reliance on English common law by the founders and their actual practices regarding citizenship.

I'll go with the common law precedent.

They believed that the citizenship of the child followed that of the father. I believe that only an Article V constitutional amendment can redefine that meaning.

If they really believed that they did a terrible job enacting it in our constitution and laws.

In fact, there are countless examples of them rejecting that notion.

You're certainly right about having to amend the Constitution to change it.

[DMZFrank]

Oops. Sent my reply to myself.

“I’ll go with the common law precedent.”

Since the Vatel quote was incorporated in the decision, that quote is now A PART of US common law jurisprudence.Common law being a body of unwritten laws based on legal precedents established by the courts. From the Supreme court, no less.

Hell, Plyer vs Doe, is the case wherein a FOOTNOTE written by Justice Brennan is how we got BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP for illegal aliens!!!!