RegulatorCountry was correct, I still have a job and have just returned to FR, but had decided that MarkoMalley’s intention is to confuse the issue with irrelevant quotations, and wasn't going to respond. My experience is that once someone uses inappropriate citations, they ignore objections to those and produce more, wasting time and creating confusion among readers.
'The Venus', 12 U.S. 253 (1814) is clearly one of the few circumstances in which a Justice defines the source of common law, and the Justice was John Marshall. That, as you pointed out, is the significance. To learn original intent, when a case specifically addressing natural born citizenship has never been heard, I'm guessing that The Venus will be cited. Besides, John Marshall such an elegant writer that I think anyone reading it will better understand why he chooses to educate us for posterity. He clearly realizes that the decisions of the young court were important.
Markomally quoted exactly one of the changed phrases in a Naturalization act, when it is entirely irrelevant, and implies as well something not true, that Congress had not changed the implication involving natural born citizens which was the reason the act was modified in 1795. Markomally sounds knowledgeable in his attempts at obfuscation, which suggests that he is other than confused.
I think for those of us who are not lawyers, the beautifully expressed reasoning in The Law of Nations will make sense to most. The issue is allegiance. Writing requirements for someone whose most important job is protecting the liberties our nation was created to grant, requirements which may survive forever, how would one try to insure the inner motivations of a candidate? Looking at his or her parents may seem too obvious, but I can think of no stronger guarantee that one could impose over centuries.
That parents be citizens seems so obvious that many can't grasp it's importance.
Curiously, that is just the clause used by the gaggle of Senators and academics rested on to argue that John McCain should be considered a natural born citizen. Of course, the congress cannot amend the constitution, so I suppose bills submitted, but not passed, were more to quiet representatives who might have actually read the constitution, and read the definition of natural born “about which there has never been doubt” in the hearings over the 14th Amendment.
Obama’s allegiance is the exactly the problem. His intention, stated, since Obama’s writings, whatever there is,have all been concealed, through the writings of some of his Czars, is to replace capitalism with whatever you want to call it - socialism, Marxism, statism. Little blood has been shed, but it seems likely to be shed, perhaps first in Honduras, as he has clearly indicated his preference for Chavez - yes Chavez because that is the strongman who will control Honduras. Israel is under siege from the most extreme of our pro-palistinian Arabists, and will be attacked as promised by Iran if they don't fight their former ally, the US.
These are the issues which concern me, not debating the typographical implications of a lower case “law of nations.”
We need to keep the objectives clear. Our constitution seems sound, if only we could impose its restrictions, created to protect us from government.
Since you just returned to FR, perhaps you forgot that it is considered proper etiquette around these parts to ping a person you mention in your post.
You accuse me of citing irrelevancies, presumably including the statutes I've quoted, as well as actually reading the SCOTUS cases you've cited. (if they were irrelevant then why in the world did you cite them to begin with?)
You seem to elevate Vattel as superior to statutory law, which is a bizarre concept that I can't picture any attorney even comprehending, much less wasting his time arguing about. But since you apparently like Vattel, you might consider this quote from Book 1 (§215):
It is asked whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens? The laws have decided this question in several countries, and their regulations must be followed…
Now I realize that you will disregard the above. And, in fact, I would imagine that you will not only disregard it, you will accuse me of obfuscating (doubtless behind my back -- as you have developed the habit of doing).
Global warming advocates don't let the facts get in the way of their arguments, so why should you?