I have read a bit about Calvin's case in “English Nationality Law: Soli or Sanguinis” in the Grotrian Society Papers of 1972. Can you recommend another source? James Wilson is a dazzling writer, and refers to Vattel, Pufendorf, Grotius, and others, discussing citizenship extensively, but not natural born citizenship - I suspect because there was so little doubt about its wisdom. Kent Story and Hamilton all confirm Vattel’s major role, and do mention natural born citizenship, deferring to Vattel, but I'd like to find scholarship more narrowly focused on natural born citizenship?
Of course, the principal challenge now is to inform as many as possible of the fact of Obama’s ineligibility. Public opinion certainly affects the willingness of political appointee judges to grant standing, though in a perfect world the law should prevail. Ridicule is a powerful weapon. For many it seems far fetched that no major legal authority would challenge a candidate who told everyone that he, because of his father, was born a British subject. They understandably figure "he told everyone so how could there be anything wrong with his eligibility?" "Someone would have said something!" The sad truth is that it was like a chess game where the Republicans knew they were vulnerable, but daren't say anything or they would lose immediately. Having hidden what they knew, they are now complicit in the coverup.
Better informed people will overcome the name-calling sheep who discourage the public from understanding that Obama is very much the kind of leader Article II Section 1 natural born citizenship was intended to protect us from. Obama’s dream was to realize the dreams from his father of a socialist government, perhaps built around Sharia law (though I suspect Marxism is a stronger guiding principle for Obama than submission to Allah). A citizen father would have provided a higher likelihood that Obama’s allegiances were more consistant with the natural law on which our Constitution was built, and that was clearly the intention. There are also legal implications which I don't claim to understand of ignoring the clear intention of the Constitution.
I do suggest that we not feed the trolls. Responding to them validates their involvement. Someone in the thread, Bp2 I believe, noted that one troll had argued opposite points in another thread. Perhaps an abbreviated response such as “Warning Wong Kim” or “Warning Long Form Birth” or “Warning Nat Born = Jus Soli” would signal that citizens are learning the truth?
I have read a bit about Calvin’s case in “English Nationality Law: Soli or Sanguinis” in the Grotrian Society Papers of 1972. Can you recommend another source?
***
Actually, I have read the relevant citation [Calvin’s Case 7 Coke Report 1a, 77 ER 377]. Nothing like getting it from the horse’s mouth. It pretty much sucks reading it - lots of Latin - and it is lengthy.
The link is:
http://www.uniset.ca/naty/maternity/77ER377.htm
Search for “three incidents to a subject born” to get to the meaty stuff ...