[From Surveyor] "Natural Born citizen" isn't even a subject addressed in common law. Common law addressed the birth of a 'subject' to alien parents, but that would not be relevent, since a subject could not become a monarch. Here is a discussion of the use in the constitution, and the origin of the term.
Well from my last post, I would say (in jest) to editor-surveyor that I have represented a bunch of surveyors and engineers over the years and it is clear from his post that he, unlike BP2, is not a lawyer. But I don't really mean that as a personal insult--and I don't want to discourage productive thought; there is some merit in what he is saying which also leads to another legal argument that has received wide circulation (on Texas Darlin's site among other places).
The Law of Nations is an important work and is gaining some importance with the judicial doctrine seeking to expand the class of legal reference to which the courts would look as a basis for developing US law--I don't agree with the view on which that doctrine is based but on the other hand wouldn't hesitate to cite the reference if it supported my client's position.
But it isn't really dispositive of anything here. The Common Law doctrine of "natural born subject" precedes the work by hundreds of years. The author's comment that "[m]any have said that de Vattel’s Law of Nations . . . . " is speculative and argumentative. It's probably fair to believe that most of the participants in the drafting of the Constitution were familiar with the document and that it had some influence. But who and how much is just unsupported speculation.
I view the line of thought that "editor-surveyor" advances here based on the work as particularly misleading in the Obama setting. The Two Parent argument is just ducky--but I can tell you with a fair degree of assurance, that if it came out that Obama was born in Hawaii (he wasn't), he is going to win no matter what else you prove--even if you prove his father was a Russian bear imported from Siberia.
I believe, although I haven't looked specifically at the legal issue, that one would probably find common law support for the (Two Parent) argument also. What does the king do with the person who is born to the wife of a visiting dignitary from another king? How about the prince that is born to the Queen while she is visiting her parents in the realm where her father is king? Probably weren't common occurrences but I assume Blackstone or some other historical author will have thought if it.
But the most important point to draw from this discussion pertains to our legal system. The engineer surveyor mindset tends to view these legal questions like mathematical calculations of the line location--they aren't.
The current Orly birth certificate may be the best evidence at the moment, but if any reasonable trier of fact looked at the entire record of information available here, even including the Hawaii COLB which I believe the Hawaii authorities have now repudiated, the trier of fact could come to no other conclusion but that he was born in Kenya. That has been true for a long time. It was true when he ran for the Senate. But it didn't make any legal difference.
And proving facts today that show him to be ineligible does not get him out of office either. At the moment, Orly has a good judge in Santa Ana--but it appears that her proceeding may be a little defective; it may be an argument that can't be decided on these pleadings until after he is out of office.
Maybe Orly gets over the problem; maybe she doesn't. A lot depends on what the judge says.
"We are going to decide this on the merits"? When? What relief? Subject to what kind of appeal? Judges say lots of stuff they are later forced to eat. Life goes on.
At present, the most important forum is not the legal forum, it is the public political forum. That is why the Opposing Forces (the "OF") are exerting so much effort to shut down Lou Dobbs and others who are making this a mainstream issue. The legal forum is important to that question because one of the OF arguments is that this has been looked at by the courts which throw it out. So it's good if Orly can do no more than keep her judge from kicking the case out.
But when and if the American people discover that he has been lying to them all this time; that he was really born in Kenya; that he was really not born in Hawaii; there will be consequences. At that point, the legal system will be involved.
Good guess! (my ex wife is a lawyer, and I constantly do work for lawyers, but I have no desire to practice law)
"The author's comment that "[m]any have said that de Vattel’s Law of Nations . . . . " is speculative and argumentative. It's probably fair to believe that most of the participants in the drafting of the Constitution were familiar with the document and that it had some influence. But who and how much is just unsupported speculation."
Sounds like you're clinging to your emotions here rather than good legal sense. The phrases directly taken from Vattel that have found their way into the Declaration, and the Constitution, coupled with the framers well known and well read letters, tends to demolish your position on that.
"But the most important point to draw from this discussion pertains to our legal system. The engineer surveyor mindset tends to view these legal questions like mathematical calculations of the line location--they aren't."
Letting emotions creep in again? - Excepting in a mapped tract, line locations are rarely determined by mathematics. Things like intent of the grantor, and the question of what the grantor may really have owned vs. what he thought did, are far more likely to be of influence. This is why lawyers come to me for opinions far more often than for calculations, or questions of practice.
"And proving facts today that show him to be ineligible does not get him out of office either."
And that is the biggest thing wrong with this country today. Courts do not uphold the clear law; they do what they see as politically expedient. Ina nutshell, that is the cancer that is dissolving the foundations of this nation.