That what the dispute is about. It is amazing. If you were to have asked people 7 years ago who de Vattel was, only about 0.5% of the people might be able to tell you, now everyone is a expert.
“If you were to have asked people 7 years ago who de Vattel was, only about 0.5% of people might be able to tell you, ...”
Yes, and a sorry reflection of our times that is. I’d bet that all 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention knew exactly who deVattel was, had studied his works, and had a singular understanding of the term that’s meaning is in dispute today.
IMO, SCOTUS has let the country down by not interpreting the Framers’ meaning and intent once and for all. And, if that interpretation doesn’t comport with the sense of the nation today, let’s amend the Constitution to eliminate the words ‘natural born’ from Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5. End of dispute.
Yes, it's a mystery how people can read and learn things.
Baffling, it is.
By the way, Aristotle predated Vattel by about 2,300 years.
"Who is the citizen, and what is the meaning of the term?...Leaving out of consideration those who have been made citizens, or who have obtained the name of citizen any other accidental manner, we may say, first, that a citizen is not a citizen because he lives in a certain place, for resident aliens and slaves share in the place;
...But the citizen whom we are seeking to define is a citizen in the strictest sense, against whom no such exception can be taken, and his special characteristic is that he shares in the administration of justice, and in offices.
...a citizen is defined to be one of whom both the parents are citizens;