“NO...he definitely is native born.( if he was born in Hawaii )....but his father was not a US Citizen...so by some definitions he may not be natural born.”
**
Show me one SCOTUS decision, one statute, one ANYTHING other than Vattel that backs up what you say.
Or through Google you can even find textbooks.
Find me SOMETHING that confirms what you say about Vattel.
Anything.
Nobody can do that. There is nothing in our laws, our history texts, our law texts, or any court decision that has ever held that two citizen parents are required for a child to be natural born.
Not one. If there were, it would have turned up by now. All Leo has is Vattel and Bingham.
We know that John Jay was concerned about a “foreigner” having the reins of power. But he said NOTHING about a person’s parents. He was referring to the PERSON, not the person’s parents.
You look in history books and see what they say about what U.S. law is based on. You will not find anything other than English common law. Sure, international law affected some of our laws, but not the way we treated citizenship.
Read the portion of the Wong decision that I posted. You can easily find Wong on the Internet, download it in a text file, open it in Microsoft Word, and search to your heart’s content.
I would love to see anything at all that confirms what you and others contend, because I grew up believing the myth of two parents, also. The fact of the matter is, however, that I never learned about the subject; I just picked up that myth, like you did. It’s not true. But if you have evidence to prove you’re right, other than Vattel, please post it.
I am more than willing to change my mind, but I have to see something. Just arguing isn’t going to do it. Or if you cannot prove it by some statute, or by some other method, show me that Vattel really had the influence you claim over the Framers. He had some, sure, with regard to international relations, but not for citizenship.
In fact, I located an English translation of him online through Google books, and I read the section that’s always quoted. And it’s interesting what he said immediately after the part we see quoted so often.
He basically says that there are no hard and fast rules and that if a nation does it differently, that’s okay, too. I’m sure you can find it yourself. It was a while back, so I don’t have the link. But I did post on PJ about it under the name Patricia, I think. Before that I was tanarg. So the posts are there somewhere, and there’s a Search function, so it can be found. I think I link to the book I used.
"THE VENUS, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (Marshall, C.J. concurring) (cites Vattel’s definition of Natural Born Citizen);
SHANKS V. DUPONT, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830) (same definition without citing Vattel)
MINOR V. HAPPERSETT, 88 U.S.162,167-168 ( 1875) (same definition without citing Vattel);
EX PARTE REYNOLDS, 1879, 5 Dill., 394, 402 (same definition and cites Vattel):
UNITED STATES V WARD, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D. Cal. 1890) (same definition and cites Vattel.)"
http://www.scribd.com/doc/17519578/Kerchner-v-Obama-Congress-DOC-34-Plaintiffs-Brief-Opposing-Defendants-Motion-to-Dismiss