[AmericanVictory]

Story never held that Vattel's work was U.S. law. What he was opining about was the type of law under consideration by the framers "in matters of citizenship,," when they drafted the Constitution. See Shanks v. Dupont. Under the circumstances, in light of this unanimous opinion and of the concurring opinion of Marshall in the Venus there is clearly a problem that would require a present day SCOTUS opinion to clearly resolve. The constitutional clause does not speak of eligibility to run for President, it speaks to eligibility to "be" President.

[John Valentine]

I certainly understand all that, but frankly it was never part of my response to the original poster. So your abrupt insertion of some sort of accusation that I was crosswise with Justice Story caught me a bit flatfooted since Justice story had never been part of the discussion up till then.

So, if Story never held that Vattel’s work was US law, then I am not at odds with him in any way, am I?