I think that the opinion of Justice Joseph Story, speaking of a majority, is more than speculation. All of the opinions I have referred to are from those who knew the framers well and had spoken to them extensively. There is no definition section in the Constitution. It is the intent of those who wrote and adopted it that matters. None of them had a contrary opinion to those that I have cited. The opinions that I have cited have been reinforced by others. For example, Chief Justice Waite in
Minor v. Happersett. Such legal authority and case law is not "speculation." We do not cite "speculation" in legal briefs, we cite authority. It is you who are speculating, and doing so in contradiction of known and ascertainable authority. Can you cite a single case or respected authority that says that the Article II phrase does not mean what Vattel said? I know of one case by an Indiana state court that is based on the speculation that the Framers were familiar with the common law and therefore adopted the phrase from it, in direct contradiction of Story, Marshall, Tucker, Ramsay and even George Mason who said that the English common law was not American common law. Indeed there is legal authority that the common law on point is not such that it would make Soetoro a/k/a Obama a legally eligible person to be President.
Tell me, if you would be so kind, what is speculative about the Story opinion in Shanks v. Dupont.
Certainly those opinions will be considered by SCOTUS if and when they make a ruling. They will also consider current practice and precedent. That said, we do not know what the ultimate decision will be. We are just speculating. Who would have ever thought that the Kelo decision would turn out as it did?
Tell me, if you would be so kind, what is speculative about the Story opinion in Shanks v. Dupont.
We will see how relevant that case is to citizenship and Presidential eligibility under the Constitution. How do you view U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark and Afroyim v. Rusk as they relate to citizenship?