Again, you have to consider that "the law of nations" is more a philosophical position -- a generally accepted sense, shareed among nations, of what is right and wrong. But as the FindLaw discussion points out, the practical aspects of that position were not precise. Probably the best (relatively) recent example would be the Nuremburg trials following WWII. It was quite clear that real crimes had been committed by the Nazis, althoug there was no established body of international law that actually codified those crimes. In that case, the general sense of "criminal activity" would have been justified by the "law of nations."
Congress has no authority to decide who will or will not be a citizen, that is determined by the circumstances of a person's birth.
That's a false assertion. In the present context, Congress passed the law governing the definition of a U.S. citizen, as codified at USC 8.1401.
Since Justice Wilson believed it to be binding, I do not have to 'consider' anything of the sort. Too many people wish to contort the meaning and purpose of the Law by using the 'it's just a philosophical idea' type argument.
IMHO, by doing so, you desecrate the entire purpose and intent of the Constitution, which was to protect the sovereignty of the People.
-----
It was quite clear that real crimes had been committed by the Nazis, althoug there was no established body of international law that actually codified those crimes. In that case, the general sense of "criminal activity" would have been justified by the "law of nations."
True, but the fact that nothing was 'codified' made no difference, precisely because the Law of Nations was already IN operation.
-----
That's a false assertion.
Telling me I'm wrong doesn't prove anything anymore than the straw-man argument concerning the Nuremburg trials did.
----
Congress can pass legislation till the cows come home, but they were not given the authority to create or define, merely to REGULATE.
A very definite but distinctive difference.