[John Valentine]

I have read several opinions by Justice Story and I have his book, “A Familiar Explanation...” sitting on my bookshelf.

I have the greatest respect for Justice Story, and indeed for Vattel, although I have never been able to get a copy of his famous treatise for my collection.

Otherwise, I can’t answer your question with specificity since you don’t identify the opinion you are asking me if I have read.

Also, I fear that you have completely misunderstood my point regarding Vattel.

Here is what I said: “And Vattel, as interesting as he is, is not US law, and never has been.”

I never said that Vattel was not influential, or that Vattel was ignorant, stupid, or misguided. I merely said that he was not US law. And he is not, despite being quoted by Justice Story in support of a decision.

It seems to me that it ought not be necessary to point out that Courts don’t make laws, and quoting Vattel in a decision does not serve to do so either.

[AmericanVictory]

You clearly have not read, and are not familiar with, the opinion for a unanimous court which I reference. It does not mention Vattel, but it clearly states that in matters of citizenship the founders did not look to English common law, as many argue and as state courts have held in reference to the cases brought about the fraud in the Oval Office. The opinion makes it quite clear that English Common law, compared to what Vattel was writing about, was mere “municipal law.” Why insult me out of ignorance? It’s scarcely a convincing method of argument.