32 votes

Natural- born citizen defined

FACT: The US Constitution requires the president to be a NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN
FACT: John Jay wrote a letter to George Washington suggesting the requirement be made
FACT: The description of natural-born citizen was derived from Vattel's work, Law of Nations § 212
FACT: In the SCOTUS decision, The Venus, 1814, Justice Marshall defines 'natural-born citizen' using Vattel's work, but in his own words saying, (#123) 'Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says, 'the citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or indigenes, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.'
http://openjurist.org/12/us/253/the-venus-rae-master

FACT: During the 2nd Session of the 37th Congress in 1862, Mr Bingham defined 'natural-born citizen' on the House floor and NONE disputed his definition. To the nest of my knowledge, NO ONE has ever disputed this definition on either the House or Senate floor since, so the definition of 'natural-born citizens' remains as such (as per last sentence of this paragraph):
"The Constitution leaves no room for doubt upon this subject. The words "natural-born citizen of the United States" occur in it, and the other provision also occurs in it that "Congress shall have power to pass a uniform system of naturalization." To naturalize a person is to admit him to citizenship. Who are natural-born citizens but those born within the Republic? Those born within the Republic, whether black or white, are citizens by birth - natural-born citizens. There is no such word as white in your Constitution. Citizenship, therefore, does not depend upon complexion say more than it depends upon the rights of election or of office. All from other lands, who, by the terms of your laws and a compliance with their provisions becomes naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural-born citizens." (emphasis mine)
To read for yourself, click on link below, click pp 961-1920, type in 1639 in box next to 'Turn to image', click on 'Turn to image'. The above quote is in column 1, paragraph 3.
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwcglink.html#anchor37

I would advise everyone to print the image of that page before they 'disappear it'.

I do not know what more proof is needed. It is clear - a natural born citizen is a child born of TWO parents of the same citizenship. This is 'jus sanguinis' not 'jus soli'. It is our duty to know our laws so none pervert them.

Cruz is INELEIGIBLE to be President and so is Obama but in this lawless country no one seems to know how to rectify the latter problem.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Why?

Your use of the word "naturally" in 215 is akin to "of course" ...

You're claiming that in 215 he's only saying "of course"? In fact in 215 he introduces the argument with "By the law of nature alone ..." and says that the place of birth is not a reason to take away "what nature has given." So when you talk as if he just says "naturally" in a way that could be construed as meaning merely "of course," when he's actually using phrases like "by the law of nature alone" and "what nature has given," I really just can't take you seriously.

Whether you admit it or not, to salvage your argument you have to imagine Vattel creating a third category in 215ff of citizens whose citizenship is given by nature at birth, but who are not natural-born citizens. You also have to interpret "natural born Citizen" in the Constitution as not as a noun modified by an adjectival phrase (note that it's not capitalized) but rather as the precise name of a category, so that being a "natural born Citizen" is not the same thing as becoming a citizen by nature at birth. You have to ignore the fact that the way the phrase was used in the 1790 act makes no sense if they had your definition in mind. You have to assume that the lack of objection from Lincoln about Fremont's eligibility is because Lincoln was a wannabe dictator but then you ignore the fact that Fremont's eligibility wasn't questioned by anyone at all as far as I can find -- which is rather hard to explain if the the prevailing understanding of "natural born Citizen" had been what you claim.

In your other declaration of victory you continue to confuse a statement of logical sufficiency with a definition. This is such a basic misunderstanding of logic that if you don't see the problem with it, there's really no point in continuing.

And now this is where you declare victory again -->

Victory ...

... is mine, of course, because you cannot cite a single source that shows any definition of natural-born citizen to be anything other than born on soil to two citizen parents.

The evidence is one-sided.

And you refuse to directly answer questions.

This discussion is over.

Not exactly

So you look at 5% of the universe of what one would consider, and then say incredulously "It is soooo obvious, how can there be any other conclusion?"

Answer: Well, in our system, since Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court decides what is and isn't Constitutional, and there have been over 200 years of jurisprudence since then. When someone cites to a recent case and then explains how they Shepardized it and checked major treatises like Lawrence Tribe's hornbook, etc., then I will be impressed.

Until then, it is just dilletantes on the internet.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

Mike Church

had Kevin Gutzman on this week discussing whether Canadian ted was eligble. They concluded that he was not. I tried to find the discussion and will keep looking but here are some links.

https://www.mikechurch.com/liberty-institute/the-constitutio...

Partial transcript:

http://www.mikechurch.com/transcripts/are-cruz-rubio-or-obam...

"Endless money forms the sinews of war." - Cicero, www.freedomshift.blogspot.com

False Patriots

I don't care for the site you reference, nor do I trust self-described "patriots" who wrap themselves in the flag.

I also distrust "patriots" who post an article quoting a Swiss political writer under the title "How The Founding Fathers Defined Natural Born Citizen"

I agree wholeheartedly

and I would want to see some DNA testing done on his baby blanket to determine what country its threads came from. We can't have a Prez who was wrapped up in sea island cotton yo!

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

Natural-Born Citizen Defined

History & logic yield a clear definition of "natural born citizen" even without resort to Court decisions:

1) On July 25, 1787 John Jay wrote to George Washington, then presiding over the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, proposing that the President be a "natural born citizen" (NBC): “Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.” Foreigners were those with foreign citizenship or allegiance, including "dual" citizens.

2) Shortly after the convention concluded, Alexander Hamilton proposed that the President be "born a citizen of the United States": "No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.” Works of Alexander Hamilton (page 407);

3) The Convention adopted the more stringent NBC requirement for Article II, Section 1 of the US Constitution presidential eligibility clause, as distinguished from Hamilton's "born a citizen" standard, and of course, from a mere "citizen" standard: "No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States."

4) NBC was a legal phrase with which the founders were well familiar from the works of Emmerich de Vattel's "The Law of Nations" and from other authors and works which they used to accomplish their goal of insuring that future Presidents would have undivided loyalty and allegiance to America;

5) Americans had recently won their independence from the British in a bloody 8-year long war and were justifiably concerned about the loyalty and allegiance of future Presidents and the risk of foreign influence on their new nation and its chief executive and commander-in-chief;

6) It is inconceivable that the founders would have chosen NBC if it meant that anyone could be President merely by his birth on US soil, regardless of the citizenship of his parents, since such a definition would allow a child born to one or even two foreign (including British) parents to be eligible for the US Presidency, a result that was totally unthinkable to the founders and could not have been overlooked or adopted by them.

7) The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868 in the wake of he Civil War, merely defined "citizens" as "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"; it says nothing about NBC, which is a special type of citizen. In not even attempting to redefine NBC or amend or delete Article II, Section 4, it left NBC alone, ratifying its status as a special type of citizenship.

THEREFORE: the only logical and intelligent conclusion is that NBC requires:

1) Child's birth on US soil; and
2) US citizenship of both parents at child's birth.

Furthermore, citing and following its dicta (opinions not needed for its rulings) in several of its earlier Supreme Court cases, NBC was
defined by the US Supreme Court in its holding in Minor v. Happersett (1875), which held that the plaintiff was a CITIZEN of the US because she happened to be a NBC, stating that: “The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted 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". This holding has been followed and cited by the Supreme Court in subsequent cases and has never been overruled.

The Court in Minor, in light of the 14th Amendment, chose not to define "citizen", leaving that definition for another day, but determined that Ms. Minor was in fact a NBC, as defined in its dicta in previous decisions, and therefore logically was, of course, a "citizen". This finding that Minor was a citizen was essential to its decision in the case; therefore, its definition of NBC is not merely dicta, or comment in passing not necessary for its decision, but law binding on other Courts as precedent until overruled by the Court itself.

Despite the foregoing, many people and even some misguided lower Courts, have ignored or dismissed Minor and subsequent Supreme Court cases that have cited it, thought it is binding law and precedent, and continue, whether intentionally or negligently, to confuse, misunderstand or equate "natural born citizen" (NBC) with "born citizen", "citizen at birth", or "native-born citizen", or with mere "citizen", when logic and common sense make it clear that NBC is a more stringent subset of citizenship, the type of citizenship that most of us acquired "naturally" upon our birth in this country to American citizen parents.

This type of citizenship is "natural" since it is the only type of citizenship that requires no special laws, treaties or constitutional amendments and results naturally upon our birth; so logically we can be nothing other than American citizens, free of foreign identity or allegiance, whether dual or otherwise. Shouldn't American presidents be required to have the same type of citizenship that most of us Americans have, free of foreign identity and influence? Of course! That's why the founding fathers chose the "natural born" citizenship requirement for President, and not merely "citizen", nor "born citizen, "citizen at birth", "native-born citizen" or their equivalent.

PEOPLE OPPOSING TYRANNY - Real Grass Roots!
Are you a POT or a PET - Person Embracing Tyranny?

Let's go through that point by point

Point by point, and I'll use "BNBC" to refer to the birther definition of natural-born citizen, i.e., including the requirement of being born on US soil.

(1) You define "foreigners" to be "those with foreign citizenship or allegiance" which although you don't cite a source for that interpretation is fine with me -- and doesn't support the BNBC.

(2) Obviously a much weaker condition than BNBC.

(3) Citing the use of the phrase "natural-born citizen" in the Constitution.

(4) Re: Vattel, they probably read beyond the bit that birthers quote out of context, down to the part about natural (not naturalized) citizenship at birth *not* depending on the place of birth, but rather on the citizenship and loyalty of the father.

(5) Absolutely the point is to avoid foreign influence, and here they might have had Vattel in mind where he argues that the presumption is that a child's loyalty will follow those of the father, and that it is this, and not the place of birth, that determines the child's natural citizenship at birth.

(6) The issue isn't whether someone could be president merely by being born on US soil, regardless of the citizenship of the parents. But that of course is not the issue at all here.

(7) Heh. That's reading a lot into something not being mentioned, and it begs the question of whether there's a third category at all. Perhaps they had Vattel's argument in mind, where he describes citizenship given by nature at birth (based on the father's citizenship and loyalty) and citizenship by naturalization (given by an act of law), and doesn't have a third contrived category of citizen-by-nature-when-born-but-not-natural-born-citizen.

Then you have the word "THEREFORE" in all caps, but you're straining for a conclusion you haven't even begun to give an argument to support.

You quote Minor v. Happersett which argued that because someone met *sufficient* conditions for being a NBC they were therefore a citizen, which is a perfectly valid form of argument. What that case did not do (and clearly so, if you read it) was define NBC. The author wasn't confused about the difference between a sufficient condition, and a definition.

This type of citizenship is "natural" since it is the only type of citizenship that requires no special laws, treaties or constitutional amendments and results naturally upon our birth ...

The part of Vattel that birthers always omit says quite clearly (section 215) " By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights (§212); the place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot of itself furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him; ...". The reference back to section 212 makes it clear that he's talking about citizenship. Note carefully that this is "by the law of nature alone" and a right that "nature has given him," i.e., clearly not naturalized citizenship which he describes and explains elsewhere. Also note the next section, "... naturally, it is our extraction, not the place of our birth, that gives us rights ...".

So Vattel disagrees with you. You say that the BNBC is the only "natural" type of citizenship, requiring not only being born on US soil but being born to two US citizens, but Vattel describes here the case of a child born on foreign soil but by nature alone inheriting the citizenship of his father at birth (as long as the father's loyalties are still with the country of his citizenship).

Flawed Logic

Your method is deceptive and/or includes several fallacies. For example:

- In #1, you append the comment (your opinion) about dual citizenship to your "evidence" without identifying it as your opinion.
- In #2, you attempt to set up a straw man by implying that the wording "born a citizen" is different from "natural born citizen". There is no evidence that these two phrases are not identical in meaning.
- in #3, you now attempt to knock down your straw man, implying there is a selection of the "more stringent".
- in #4, while de Vattel does argue that a child born in country of foreign parents is not a citizen, you offer no proof that his reference is definitive or familiar to the founders. Nor is there any proof that the founders "being familiar" with a work means that they ascribe to that view or that they define the term in the same way as de Vattel.
- In #5, this was never in question.
- In #6, Inconceivable. "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." For example, I can conceive that the founders would have chosen NBC if it meant someone could be President merely by being born a citizen on US soil (or born a citizen on foreign soil for that matter). So it is not inconceivable.
- In #7, your argument is that by not including the term "natural-born" they are providing a special but invisible de facto proof? Exclusion may indicate that they considered "born" as the same thing as "natural-born".

---
Finally your conclusion start with "therefore: the only logical and intelligent conclusion..."

Since your argument is fraught with logical fallacies, I will venture to say that you are ill-equipped to define "the only logical" conclusion.

In the constitution I see only two categories of citizen defined, which I interpret as:
- natural-born (made citizen by birth)
- naturalized (made citizen by process(after-birth))

I respect your right to disagree, but I do not find your argument valid or convincing.

born a citizen is different than NBC

ask john mccain.
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-sr511/text
also ineligible.

"The two weakest arguments for any issue on the House floor are moral and constitutional"
Ron Paul

care to explain?

Are you saying that he was *not* a NBC, but that the resolution *made* him an NBC?

That makes no sense, because being an NBC is only something nature can do for you. As Vattel puts it, we gain these rights from nature at birth by virtue of parental citizenship and loyalty, and the place of birth doesn't change that.

The resolution doesn't even claim to make McCain an NBC, it merely recognizes that he is. It presents an argument that the place of birth, at least in some cases, isn't a disqualifier for NBC (and Vattel obviously would agree).

Citing this as evidence that McCain was ineligible is hard to understand, when it's making a case for just the opposite.

Care to explain and explained

Did you read my post carefully? I am saying he was NOT an NBC because he was NOT born on US soil (though I recognize that some could argue that it WAS US soil, and in fact the Senate Resolution DID FIND, in passing, without explanation, that he WAS born on US soil, thought that portion of Panama where he was born did not become the Panama Canal Zone, ie. US SOIL, until almost one year AFTER his birth!). Why would the Senate Resolution find that he was BORN ON US soil if it they did not recognize such birth as essential to NBC?

The birthplace requirement is ONE of the requirements for NBC, IN ADDITION to parental (2 parents') citizenship. NBC combines the requirements of BOTH jus soli (law of the soil) AND jus sanguinis (law of the blood); it is NOT an EITHER/OR requirement. That is why both Vattel and the Supreme Court in Minor defined the "natives, or natural born citizens" as those born in the country to citizen parents.

The Senate Resolution was NON-BINDING and had NO LEGAL effect but was intended to carry POLITICAL weight with NO LEGISLATIVE RESPONSIBILITY for those 99 Senators who signed it (McCain alone abstained). Even it were a bill passed by the Senate AND the House and signed into LAW by the President (an absurdity), it would still have no LEGAL validity because a provision of the Constitution, though it can be interpreted (or misinterpred) by the Courts and by the executive and legislative branches and by the people as well, can NEVER be validly CHANGED, even by an act of Congress, except through the process of AMENDMENT.

You assert that when it comes to NBC, "the place of birth doesn't change that." You may choose to believe that assertion is or ought to be true, but it clearly is NOT, since Vattel and the Supreme Court in Minor clearly include "birth in the country" as a requirement for NBC. Where are your citations for authority to the contrary? Where is the Supreme Court case that rejects the Minor Court's definition of NBC?

PEOPLE OPPOSING TYRANNY - Real Grass Roots!
Are you a POT or a PET - Person Embracing Tyranny?

at issue is whether mccain was born on US soil.

he is recognized as a NBC only because a military base is considered US soil.

"The two weakest arguments for any issue on the House floor are moral and constitutional"
Ron Paul

John McCain

was not born on a military base, he was born in Colon, Panama. His birth certificate is online.

i stand corrected.

his original story was Coco Solo airbase. that was ineligible enough for me. i didn't realize he got caught in a lie. thanks for making it even juicier.

"The two weakest arguments for any issue on the House floor are moral and constitutional"
Ron Paul

Since that is the case,

Since that is the case, evidently "natural born citizenship" is evidently a trait that can only be passed down by genetically superior American parents. /s

"Genetically superior American parents" LOL!

Are you a US citizen or legal resident intending to acquire US citizenship? If not, why are you giving your opinion on this matter?
If you are, do you really believe what you just posted?

If I move to France and decide to run for President of France, should I hate the "genetically superior French parents" who insist I have to first become a French citizen for X number of years before I am eligible, or that I need to have been born in France, or that BOTH of my parents must be French, if that's what their laws require? Don't the French people (and the people of every other nation) have a right to determine the qualifications and eligibility for their office holders, especially for their President. It is THEIR country and THEIR rules!

PEOPLE OPPOSING TYRANNY - Real Grass Roots!
Are you a POT or a PET - Person Embracing Tyranny?

See this?: "s/"

.

.

PEOPLE OPPOSING TYRANNY - Real Grass Roots!
Are you a POT or a PET - Person Embracing Tyranny?

Thank you for that

intelligent and well reasoned post. I have a question about your #4 which seems to be the whole key:

4) NBC was a legal phrase with which the founders were well familiar from the works of Emmerich de Vattel's "The Law of Nations" and from other authors and works which they used to accomplish their goal of insuring that future Presidents would have undivided loyalty and allegiance to America;

So if you're saying the founders were using NBC drawing from the works of Emmerich de Vattel's "The Law of Nations" is doggydogworld below incorrect? He said:

Vattel describes two ways of becoming a citizen, citizenship "given by nature" and citizenship by naturalization. The key point in his argument is that "children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights."

He says that "naturally, it is our extraction, not the place of our birth, that gives us rights" and that a child born in a foreign country has, as a matter of natural law, the same citizenship as the father, and that this is given by nature (not naturalization)

NBC Phrase

Vattel is discussing all aspects of CITIZENSHIP. He is not writing a treatise about NATURAL BORN CITIZENSHIP (NBC). In fact, until our founders chose to incorporate NBC into Article II, Section 1 of the US Constitution as a criterion for the US Presidency, I am unaware of any nation that had required NBC as a condition for holding public office or of any other that has done so to date. Remember, in 1787 there were few if any Constitutional republics, certainly none with a written constitution that I am aware of. It is ONLY the definition of NBC, which Vattel mentions in passing, that our founders chose to adopt for Presidential eligibility. That definition is clearly those born in the country to citizen parents: a twofold requirement: 1) birth in the country; and 2) citizenship of parents (plural). The more extensive discussion of citizenship and all its aspects are essentially irrelevant to the definition of NBC, which is the ONLY issue relevant to interpreting NBC and the requirements of Article II, Section.

By the way, the term "the fathers" was virtually synonomous with "the parents" in the 18th century, since in all nations of the time the mothers took the citizenship of their husbands, had no vote and few other rights, and their husbands had sole authority to own and control property, vote, and determine and implement the major family decisions, including the religious and educational upbringing of their sons.

More importantly, it is the Supreme Court's 1875 ruling in Minor v. Happersett that is controlling. Before ultimately determining that Mrs. Minor was not given the right to vote by the US Constitution despite the fact that she was a US CITIZEN (nor was anyone else, including men - it was up to the STATE's to decide who could vote!), it FIRST had to DECIDE if she was a US CITIZEN. It did so in an elegant way, by avoiding a general definition of US CITIZENSHIP, but instead finding that she was a CITIZEN because the facts of the case
demonstrated that she happened be an NBC, which it defined as those born in the country to citizen parents, citing Vattel and several earlier Supreme Court decisions, and therefore since she met the criteria for a NBC, she was of course a CITIZEN.

This FINDING of NBC was essential to its FINDING that she was a CITIZEN, which finding was essential to its ultimate ruling that, though a citizen, Mrs. Minor was not granted the right to vote by the US CONSTITUTION. So its definition of NBC was essential to its holdings in the case, is not mere DICTA (ie. comment not necessary for its holding) and is therefore binding LAW on all Courts unless and until is is reversed. Minor has been cited as law in several subsequent Supreme Court cases and has never been overruled. So its definition of NBC is binding on all Courts and should be precedent for any future Court rulings and should clearly inform us today on the meaning of NBC.

PEOPLE OPPOSING TYRANNY - Real Grass Roots!
Are you a POT or a PET - Person Embracing Tyranny?

"children naturally follow

the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights."

the same way the child of an illegal alien from mexico would still be mexican.

"naturally, it is our extraction, not the place of our birth, that gives us rights" and that a child born in a foreign country has, as a matter of natural law, the same citizenship as the father, and that this is given by nature (not naturalization)

citizen, yes. natural born, no.
your interpretation would suggest king george and his old lady could give birth to a child in america and expect he could be president. that interpretation renders the clause in the Constitution nonsensical.

"The two weakest arguments for any issue on the House floor are moral and constitutional"
Ron Paul

Someone please explain where you get this U.S. soil crap from?

I just re-read the text of the constitution in regards to the requirements to be president of the U.S. The only thing it says on this topic is that you have to be a natural born citizen of the U.S. If your citizenship comes simply from being born, you are a natural born American. You do not need to go through a naturalization process like a foreigner that wishes to become a citizen.

I have a 3 year old son with a woman that is a citizen of the Philippines. He was born on Philippines soil, to an American father, and a filipino mother. He received a Philippines birth certificate. Once I went down to the embassy and proved paternity with a DNA test, he received his U.S. passport. He is his fathers son, and by virtue of that he was a natural U.S. Citizen. He holds dual citizenship.

An unrelated side note, he can own property in the Philippines someday. A good place for his daddy to live like a king, even on a small social security check.

RE: Someone please explain where you get this U.S. soil crap...?

At adoption the U.S. Constitution did not say who should be citizens, it only granted Congress the authority to Establish a Uniform Rule of Naturalization.

In the first few months after adoption before these rules were established there was only one way for one to become a Citizen of the United States, this was by being born within the United States to two United State citizens. This is who the Founders understood to be the "natural born Citizens".

The definition of a "natural born Citizen" is the same today as when it was inserted into the United States Constitution, it has not changed.

Persons born out of the United States to citizen parent[s] are not "natural born Citizens". If they were, Congress would not of needed to use the Authority granted to them by the United States Constitution to establish them as citizens.

clearly your son is a naturalized citizen

dual citizens can never be natural born only naturalized

The naturalization process

The naturalization process was not required for my son. He did not to get made natural, it was a given based on his father's citizenship. He inherited it, along with my rugged good looks. lol.

You were in the military ...

... right?

yep, I also replied in the

yep, I also replied in the other thread.

You have to go look at contemporary sources

such as Vattel:
http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=s...
to see how the phrase was used. Vattel describes two ways of becoming a citizen, citizenship "given by nature" and citizenship by naturalization. The key point in his argument is that "children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights." In other words, the presumption in the case of a newborn child is that their loyalty will follow that of the father, and the rights of the child with respect to citizenship therefore naturally follow those of the father too. (We might today include the mother in that argument.) He says that "naturally, it is our extraction, not the place of our birth, that gives us rights" and that a child born in a foreign country has, as a matter of natural law, the same citizenship as the father, and that this is given by nature (not naturalization), and "the place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot of itself furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him."

With me so far?

Okay, now pretend you didn't see any of that, take just the first part of Vattel's argument out of context, stir in the assumption that a comment from the House floor that doesn't actually support the birther argument is somehow a compelling bit of proof, add an out-of-context quote from a dissenting SC opinion that doesn't define or for that matter even use the phrase "natural born citizen" and isn't trying to define citizenship much less natural born citizenship, mix with a misunderstanding of some basic points of logic such as the difference between an example (meeting a sufficient condition) and a definition (giving necessary and sufficient conditions), and you're done.

HTH

You are saying Obama is a British subject ...

... through his father, right?