[Jeff Winston]

No, but the obvious source that the Court is quoting does. All your left with is an inconsequential objection over the use of an article before the noun.

Ah. So it's "obvious" that the Court is quoting Vattel.

Only it isn't. They themselves indicate their their source for the meaning of "natural born citizan" is THE COMMON LAW.

THE COMMON LAW. NOT SOME UNNAMED WRITER ON INTERNATIONAL LAW, WHO RANKED 30TH ON THE LIST OF WRITERS WHO INFLUENCED THE FOUNDERS.

Look, you're an idiot. You twist things to say what they obviously don't say, and then defend that. You assume that the Supreme Court is referring to an obscure passage in Vattel when it's obvious they aren't. You insist that something that was clearly not a definition WAS a comprehensive definition. You insist that something that was OBVIOUSLY and indisputably - to anyone with the slightest modicum of legal awareness - a SIDE COMMENT, was "the holding." That's IDIOTIC. And you further insist that something that would've clearly been overruled by a later comprehensive analysis of citizenship, wasn't. Once again, THAT'S IDIOTIC.

Beyond that, there is not a single competent interpreter of the law who sees things the way you do.

I don't really know what else to say, except that you are wasting people's time, including mine, with complete idiocy.

Really. Complete and total idiocy.

And this is the legacy of the birthers. A massive excursion into the popularization of utter stupidity.

[Cold Case Posse Supporter]

“there is not a single competent interpreter of the law who sees things the way you do.”

Curious. For the record, specifically how many competent interpreters of law do you know on a personal level for you to make such allegations?

[edge919]

Ah. So it's "obvious" that the Court is quoting Vattel.

Absolutely. I've shown this direct comparison several times. Below are quotes from the law of nations and from Minor v. Happersett with the common phrases and words underlined. The overlap is obvious.

Minor: 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, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.

Law of Nations: The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.

There are other phrases in Minor that also appear to come directly from the law of nations:

Minor: He was one of the persons associating together to form the nation

Law of Nations: the act of association which has formed the political body

They themselves indicate their their source for the meaning of "natural born citizan" is THE COMMON LAW.

Right, then you can find where the common law says "all children born in the country of parents who were its citizens." Hop to.

You assume that the Supreme Court is referring to an obscure passage in Vattel when it's obvious they aren't.

Wong Kim Ark quoted the "obscure passage" verbatim. Why are you being dishonest about this?? What does that gain you?? Any jackass can call names. Prove that you're smarter than that and more honest than that.