[Red Steel]

Vatell was an acknowledged 18th century expert on international law. But unfortunately he was Swiss and not American.

That doesn't matter one bit - a non sequitur. In the 18th Century and in the 21st Century Vattel's work about natural law transcends time all the way up to the 21st Century. This book was publish in 2005.

And as you can see, when this nation was formed, de Vattel book had a predominant influence on our Founders.

What you clowns fail to realize that laws are not needed to say who are natural born citizens. No Constitutional amendment, no statutes, no acts of Congress, no treaties, no Wong Kim Ark SCOTUS opinion(didn't happen), no nothing. You looking for US statutes that says so is futile.

[bushpilot1]

pls have a look 7)pg6 in the Obama pdf.

[patlin]

What you clowns fail to realize that laws are not needed to say who are natural born citizens. No Constitutional amendment, no statutes, no acts of Congress, no treaties, no Wong Kim Ark SCOTUS opinion(didn't happen), no nothing. You looking for US statutes that says so is futile.

Exactly! Natural as in nature. From the beginning of time children owed obedience to the father & mother and the father & mother owed protection & an obligation to educate the child. At the time of the founding as well as the ratification of the Constitution for our nation that was framed on natural law as declared in the Declaration as well as the Constitution, it has been through the citizen father or single citizen mother born of a citizen father that the child becomes a natural born citizen.

[jamese777]

That doesn’t matter one bit - a non sequitur. In the 18th Century and in the 21st Century Vattel’s work about natural law transcends time all the way up to the 21st Century. This book was publish in 2005.

And as you can see, when this nation was formed, de Vattel book had a predominant influence on our Founders.

---

Once again, should any court of law or any congressional committee deem the Law of Nations to be relevant to Obama’s eligibility, I’ll be most interested.
Umtil then, I’m not interested.
I did note that the Indiana Court of Appeals actually mentioned Vattel in their dismissal of Ankeny et. al. v The Governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels.
To wit: “The bases of the Plaintiffs’ arguments come from such sources as FactCheck.org, The Rocky Mountain News, an eighteenth century treatise by Emmerich de Vattel titled “The Law of Nations,” and various citations to nineteenth century congressional debate. For the reasons stated below, we hold that the Plaintiffs’ arguments fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and that therefore the trial court did not err in dismissing the Plaintiffs’ complaint.”

So Vatell has actually been mentioned in an Obama eligibility lawsuit.

[edge919]

What you clowns fail to realize that laws are not needed to say who are natural born citizens. No Constitutional amendment, no statutes, no acts of Congress, no treaties, no Wong Kim Ark SCOTUS opinion(didn't happen), no nothing. You looking for US statutes that says so is futile.

The SCOTUS did affirm what you're saying in Minor v. Happersett. It specifically rejected the 14th amendment as being necessary for determing citizenship in the case of natural born citizens.

"There is no doubt that women may be citizens. They are persons, and by the fourteenth amendment "all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" are expressly declared to be "citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." But, in our opinion, it did not need this amendment to give them that position."

- - -

"The fourteenth amendment did not affect the citizenship of women any more than it did of men. In this particular, therefore, the rights of Mrs. Minor do not depend upon the amendment. She has always been a citizen from her birth, and entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizenship. The amendment prohibited the State, of which she is a citizen, from abridging any of her privileges and immunities as a citizen of the United States; but it did not confer citizenship on her. That she had before its adoption."

Wong Kim Ark affirms this decision by citing the same definition of natural born citizen and by pointing out that Minor recognized its plaintiff's citizenship for jus sanguinis and jus soli reasons. Also, not that the plural form of parents is used in conjunction with a singular child, so that it's clear that natural born citizenship descends from the mother and father collectively — not just one.

"The decision in that case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States ..."

The one part of the WKA decision that really destroys the faither arguments on children of foreign nationals is its quote of a lower court here:

"The colored people were no more subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, by reason of their birth here, than were the white children born in this country of parents who were not citizens."

IOW, this is saying (and Justice Waite apparently agrees) that children of parents who weren't citizens were in the same class of persons who were not recognized as citizens as colored people. It also said that to be subject to the United States, you had to be domiciled here, which was aximonatically true for slaves and their children, but not necessarily so for parents who aren't citizens. That's why Waite had to determine and declare that WKA's parents were permanently domiciled at the time WKA was born (even though they eventually moved back to China). Under these terms Obama, even if born in Hawaii, was not a 14th amendment citizen much less a natural born citizen.