No. Again, you are asking for unqualified acceptance of unsubmitted evidence. I believe someone looking for the truth puts their cards on the table instead of playing stupid little guessing games.
Like this-
In the Supreme Court Case Brown v. United States 1814 concerning a violation of Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 quotes Vattel in the decision. Joseph Story, [who wrote his Commentaries on the Constitution after Rawle] writing the dissent, quoted Vattel as well.
Not Pufendorf, not Grotius, not Burlamaqui, not even Charles de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu.
Vattel.
-----
First, show me where the Founding Fathers or Framers ever said it took citizen parents to make a natural born citizen.
Why would they? Natural born citizenship is not under the purview of government.
----
So that means that when writing the rule for the United States, we can substitute the word "citizen" every place where we see "subject."
The hell we can. Free people are not 'subjects'.
-----
And the also told us that the sovereign, or king has been substituted for the collective body of the people of the United States. So we can make that substitution as well when writing out what they are telling us the rule is FOR THE UNITED STATES.
Wrong again. The collective body ISN'T king, the People are. It's why we're called SOVERIGN Citizens.
The only kind of 'citizen' the collective can make is a naturalized one.
-----
This, then, is the ruling of the Wong Kim Ark Court:
No, THIS is the ruling of the Wong Kim Ark court....
becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States.
AFTER it's explanation that
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
-----
And all of this is completely unavoidable, except by going to great contortions to twist the ruling.
ROFLMAO! You go through that convoluted pile of drek you call 'rationale' that runs totally counter to the words of the decision itself then have the unmitigated gall to accuse ME of 'contorting to twist the ruling'?
You're not only a fraud, but a completely delusional one.
No, I'm not. I am simply asking for a commitment from you that if the evidence is better that someone else supplied the phrase, you will drop your claim that Vattel supplied it.
That is very straightforward, and it is a commitment that no honest person who is willing to go according to the EVIDENCE would EVER refuse to make. And the fact that you REPEATEDLY refuse to make such a basic commitment - to simply go by the evidence - is a very clear indication that you have no intention of going by the evidence.
So it's very clear that you are simply going to preach two citizen parents and Vattel, no matter what. No matter HOW fictional it is.
I believe someone looking for the truth puts their cards on the table instead of playing stupid little guessing games.
Why should anyone actually bother presenting evidence to you, when you've made it absolutely clear that no evidence that can be presented would cause you to change your mind? It's completely irrelevant whether I present you with the evidence or not, because you absolutely refuse to be swayed by evidence.
Now look how very far out you are. Not only are you a little bit biased. You are so biased that you absolutely REFUSE to make a simple commitment to go where the evidence leads you.
That is WAY, WAY out there. That is LOONYVILLE. That is KOOKSVILLE.
Of course, you're in good company. Because your behavior is no different from that of the TYPICAL BIRTHER.
In the Supreme Court Case Brown v. United States >SNIP<
Wow. You found a court case that cites Vattel.
Amazing.
Of course, the citation of Vattel has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL to do with citizenship.
I have repeatedly said that Vattel was influential in the area of INTERNATIONAL LAW.
Was he cited in court cases? Yes.
Did he define the Constitutional meaning of "natural born citizen?" ABSOLUTELY NOT. Had absolutely nothing to do with it.
We could find probably a HUNDRED authors who were cited in court cases. But virtually none of them had any influence on our term "natural born citizen."
First, show me where the Founding Fathers or Framers ever said it took citizen parents to make a natural born citizen.
Why would they? Natural born citizenship is not under the purview of government.
Okay, so you admit you can't.
Well, I can cite DOZENS of quotations from early America that NEVER mention citizen parents, that NEVER say that natural born citizen takes citizen parents, and in fact use the term NATIVE (which always meant one born on the soil) synonymously to NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.
If you want, I can cite some for you.
So that means that when writing the rule for the United States, we can substitute the word "citizen" every place where we see "subject."
The hell we can. Free people are not 'subjects'.
Can you not read the words of the United States Supreme Court? Apparently not.
And the also told us that the sovereign, or king has been substituted for the collective body of the people of the United States. So we can make that substitution as well when writing out what they are telling us the rule is FOR THE UNITED STATES.
Wrong again. The collective body ISN'T king, the People are. It's why we're called SOVERIGN Citizens.
First of all, I fail to see any difference between "the collective body of the people" and "the People."
Gosh, you're not even rational at this point. Do you have any idea how foolish you look?
No, THIS is the ruling of the Wong Kim Ark court.... becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States.
It is abundantly clear that you do not understand the first thing about law. You don't understand what makes for precedent. You can't even read the plain words of the Court, quoted above.
It is astonishing to me that people who know not the faintest thing about a topic will act as if they are the experts.
Of course, on the internet everybody is "equal." So anyone can claim to be an expert.
Well, here's the clue as to whether you are, or aren't.
NO COURT AGREES WITH YOU. Neither does any major Constitutional organization, INCLUDING ANY CONSERVATIVE ONE.
You are just another loony birther, and the fact that you accuse me of being "delusional" is a betrayal of the fact that you are so deep into your own delusion that you will probably never, ever emerge.