I reject the Vattel argument for many reasons, the big one being that until 2008 no one ever seriously argued that Vattel was used to define American citizenship. I have studied US history for years - lets just say that Vattel is not a name that pops up very often. Show me some serious legal articles in the past 50 years that talk about Vattel and NBC and then we will talk.
Did you happen to notice that the Wong Kim Ark court did not discuss the WAR of 1812? The most salient event of the Nation's history after the War of Independence, fought entirely over the issue of what is a "natural born American" and what is a British Subject, and not a single mention of this watershed event in their decision? Forgive me if I favor the opinion that the Court might have missed a few bits and pieces.
I reject the Vattel argument for many reasons, the big one being that until 2008 no one ever seriously argued that Vattel was used to define American citizenship. I have studied US history for years - lets just say that Vattel is not a name that pops up very often. Show me some serious legal articles in the past 50 years that talk about Vattel and NBC and then we will talk.
The last 50 years are not relevant to the point. Only the First 50 years are. That is when people certainly KNEW what the term meant. I can show you serious legal articles, but most of them are 90 years old or older. I could show you one recent article by a well known Constitutional Legal Scholar that says a "natural born citizen" has two American Parents, but you probably won't find it convincing, seeing as how your mind seems to be fixed on the common fallacy.
If you want to look at stuff that disproves your belief, I can show you dozens of things. But for now, I would like to show you the opinions of two Highly respected Conservative Commentators and Scholars regarding this issue.
And