“So you and Justice Kennedy put foreign law above the US Constitution?”
No, you are misrepresenting the information. The Founding Fathers incorporated certain aspects of pre-existing law by reference to pre-existing principles and definitions of law. To change the meaning of the natural born citizen phrase as used by the Founding Fathers in the U.S. Constitution is supposed to require an Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that explicitly defines a natural born citizen differently than was used by John Jay in his letter to George Washington and differently than was defined in the Law of Nations by Vatel and incorporated into the U.S. Constitution by reference to that terminology known to all 18th Century jurists consulting the standard international law reference by Vatel on the subject.
Remember that Vatel in turn relied upon earlier works on international law written in Latin by Wolff and Hugo Grotius to produce his own french vernacular work on the subject.
Britain’s common law practice of proscribing expatriation was contrary to the law of nations practiced by most other nations, yet Britain too recognized the international principle of jus sanguinnis at least with respect to the foreign born children of British citizens. This is why the concept of having two citizen parents to confer citizenship by jus sanguinnis was already a well known and uncontroversial concept for the Founding Fathers accustomed to dealing with the conflicting laws between Britain and the Continent on such matters.
The colonies had a disparate system of naturalization laws reflecting the former British, Dutch, French, Swedish, and Spanish origins of the American communities which became the United States of America. While the naturalization laws have subsequently been superceded in the mid-19th Century by a uniform naturalization law under the Federal government, no U.S. Constitutional amendment has succeeded in being enacted by the U.S. Congress to alter the original meaning of the natural born citizen phrase as first written by the Founding fathers and their original intent. Attempts to do so have been made by the Democrat Party as recently as the past ten years and immediately prior to Obama’s campaign for the Presidency. All such efforts to amend the Constitution failed, so the Democrat Party simply ignored the Constitution and defied the Citizens of the United States to try enforcing the natural born citizen phrase in the U.S. Constitution. With the help of many U.S. citizens, the MSM, and Congress, the Democrats have been successful in defying the U.S. Constitution and the Founding Fathers, so far.
Nonetheless, John Jay was the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, and he was very explicit about asking his fellow Founding Fathers to use the natural born citizen phrase to disqualify anyone born with allegiance to a foreign sovereign such as the British monarch from eligibillity to the Office of the Supreme court and command of the American Army.
Very interesting but what on earth does that have to do with what we are talking about? You keep floating red herrings that have nothing to do with the facts in question.