[4Zoltan]

“Well at this point, even that would satisfy me”

Maybe. Here is what Justice Scalia said in 2005.

“Now, my theory of what I do when I interpret the American Constitution is I try to understand what it meant, what was understood by the society to mean when it was adopted. And I don’t think it changes since then.”

“Now, obviously if you have that philosophy... foreign law is irrelevant with one exception: Old English law, because phrases like “due process,” the “right of confrontation” and things of that sort were all taken from English law. So the reality is I use foreign law more than anybody on the Court. But it’s all old English law.”

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1352357/posts

[edge919]

This is all the more reason why Minor is THE legal precedent as a unanimous decision that defined natural-born citizen in the "nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar ..." Of course, the "nomenclature" is actually the Law of Nations since the definition of NBC is a near verbatim match:

Minor: all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens

Law of Nations: those born in the country, of parents who are citizens