Replies

You talk about Rawle and Story, but you completely ignore the far better qualified and knowledgeable Chief Justice John Marshall Or Washington's Nephew Justice Bushrod Washington, both of which explicitly cite Vattel as the authority on issues involving citizenship.

You obviously didn't learn the lesson I taught you back when you brought The Venus into the discussion. A refresher:

1. Marshall was writing in dissent.

2. Citizenship wasn't even an issue in the case.

3. The version of Vattel he utilizes doesn't even use the term "natural born citizen," which alone destroys your argument that Marsall is trying to give his opinion on he Article II meaning.

Likewise, Bushrod Washington isn't opining on U.S. citizenship law, he also omits use of the term "natural born citizen." He's stating what the writers on the law of nations state, but as I instructed you before, citizenship is a matter of domestic (municipal) law; not international law.

"Invincible ignorance" is an apt label for you.

You can't teach anybody anything because you have nothing of value that anyone should want to know.

You are just one mass regurgitation of Dr. Conspiracy and his Obama justifying minions. Your assertions are contrary to the best interests of this nation, and you are effectively an enemy, just as is "citizen" Obama.

I suggest you read Marshall’s opinion in the case more thoroughly. He was dissenting in part and concurring in part. The significance of what he said for the present discussion was that he said that the point that the case really turned upon was one determined by the law of nations and, on that point, cited Vattel’s well known definition.