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?
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…The British Nationality Act of 1948 says children born of their subjects in foreign countries are subjects. We must respect that by acknowledging Usurper Barry cannot be an indigenous American, ie a natural-born citizen.
A clue to someone’s motives is assertion with no attibution. You seem to need to imply that I havn’t read the cases I've mentioned. Those are Alinsky tactics, though certainly not exclusive to Alinsky acolytes. Of course I've read The Venus, and Marbury, and Wong Kim, and Elg, and Nguyen - but I hadn't before Obama became an issue. Why would you need to make such an assertion? I've experienced some master intimidators, John Holdren for example, and long ago realized their motives were personal rather than the honest exploration of ideas. I only mentioned The Venus because Marshall includes the Vattel definition of natural born in his definition of who were the citizens.
You quote a Vattel statement about who are the citizens which doesn't contradict any assertions regarding natural born citizens. Vattel, who certainly understands the meaning of natural-born-citizenship, though is not the only legal philosopher to have defined it or used the same definition, is talking about citizens. There is no doubt that nations make laws defining citizens, as we did with the 14th amendment. The issue is children defined by nature, whose allegiance is not changeable by laws. That is the remarkable insight expressed by Vattel, perhaps drawn from his philosophical mentor, Gottlieb Leibniz. I have not traced the sources, but have read that both Leibniz and Vattel were scholars of Greek and Roman history, and many of the ideas so remarkably collated and expressed in Law of Nations, and which you will see referenced in Vattel's examples are from Roman and Greek law.
Vattel understood that for political advantage some party might, for example, make all Latin Americans citizens, and then define Chavez a ‘natural born citizen’ because he was born on ‘American’ soil. I know that's a stretch, but look what they've done here; promoted the son of a Kenyan radical to our highest office for political payoffs. I have had friends over the years from South America who point out that we are, after all, all Americans. Both parties conspired to make their own non-natural born candidate appear to be eligible. All law makers, so far, plead ignorance. “That's nonsense! Everyone has seen the birth certificate and Twittered about it.” Lawmakers assert, both provisions, depending upon who their candidate is. That is the genius of an independent judiciary, to protect the meaning of the constitution. Because no president's parentage before Obama had been questioned (Chester Arthur was taken at his word about the date of his father's naturalization), the USSC has not had to intervene to clarify the common law.
Our common law has been deemed to come from Vattel by many legal scholars, and that interpretation affirmed by Justice Marshall, even though citizenship, and not natural born citizenship, was the issue in The Venus.
I'll look up ‘ping’.