>>Obviously, there is *no* U.S. code that defines “Natural-Born” as stated in the Constitution regarding qualifications for the office of President. Vattel’s Law of Nations defined it as being born in country by two citizen parents. ie - having no birth-allegiance to any other nation-state (the reason for the term “natural-born” I would surmise).<<
Show me a single court case where Vattel has been used as a basis. Show where in the USC it says Vattel applies.
By your reasoning NO ONE can be a “Natural Born citizen.”
You are splitting hairs you aren’t even qualified to address.
I say again: STOP!
Birthers asked for the COLB — we got it, issue over.
This case concerned Mrs. Happersett, an original suffragette, who in virtue of the 14th Amendment attempted to register to vote in the State of Missouri, and was refused because she was not a man. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in that year, wrote the majority opinion, in which he stated:
The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.
But of course, there are no SCOTUS decisions that actually set any legal precedents regarding what "natural born citizen" means, because no case has ever come before the court where that was one of the issues to be decided. Courts don't decide issues not brought before them by the litigants, and whatever they say on such matters is dicta, and sets no precedents.
>>Show me a single court case where Vattel has been used as a basis. Show where in the USC it says Vattel applies.<<
I never claimed to be qualified to address it and I even said it would need to be resolved by the SCOTUS.
Perhaps you can show us a single court case where the *natural-born* citizenship qualifications for a President/candidate was resolved? I doubt you would find one. You might find where mere “citizenship” was determined, but not, specifically, “natural-born” citizenship. Not saying it doesn’t exist, but I’d be really surprised. Perhaps you aren’t qualified to address the issue either, but I won’t take offense like some appear to.
You’re clearly having a difficult time with the concept of Constitutional citizenship, granted by no inferior statutory or civil authority.
Other than a Cherokee or two and the matter of my great grandfather having to take the Oath Of Allegiance after the Civil War, I don’t have a single ancestor that wasn’t natural born all the way back to the founding generation which was covered by the so-called “Grandfather Clause.” All born on US soil of citizen parents, for the duration of this country’s existence.
Obama’s birth certificate proves nothing even if it’s genuine. His father was foreign, he was a citizen of another nation at birth, ergo he was not a natural born citizen of the United States because he was subject to another juridiction. This means he was not subject to the sole jurisdiction of the US.
I understand your concern — yes, we win on the issues — but you really need to learn more about how to persuade people.
“Birthers asked for the COLB — we got it, issue over.”
What a shallow argument. That’s like saying that anyone should be a U.S. citzen regardless of where he or she happened to be born. Is that essentially Stein’s argument? Brilliant guy but darn is he messed up if that’s his silly claim.
Ok, here’s a SCOTUS ruling that reinforces Vattel’s definition of “Natural-Born-Citizen” as born to two citizen parents:
MINOR V. HAPPERSETT, 88 U. S. 162 (1874)
http://supreme.justia.com/us/88/162/case.html
Obama’s qualification(s) were vetted by Pelosi, and he was sworn-in *twice* by Justice Roberts. How does that square with the above decision (supporting Vattel’s definition) when there is no argument from anyone that Obama’s father was *not* a citizen? Well, that is the issue that needs to be resolved.
Personally, I think not pursuing it would be damaging to the supremacy of the Constitution (very steep, very slippery-slope) — so it *must* be pursued. Certainly, we can walk & chew gum at the same time, so pursuing this issue does not preclude arguing other issues & qualifications and/or promoting a particular candidate. Opinions may vary.