How did Obama gain entry to Pakistan? Netanyahu Backs Birthers

Excuse me for misspelling the name off the top of my head. At least I have read the case, which you obviously have not. In the judge's decision, he specifically says that the case is not going to provide a definition of Natural Born Citizen. It merely supports that people born in the US of two citizen parents are without a doubt NBC. It does not say that they are the only ones. As for the other cases you name, what blog did you copy these from? The Venus has nothing to do with NBC; It deals....

(cont) property rights and naturalized citizens. Scott v. Sandford is in regards to the rights of a slave and has been vacated by the 14th Amendment. Shanks v. Dupont does not deal with NBC since it involves the English born grandchildren trying to claim the estate of their grandfather and whether their mother lost her citizenship by marrying a British Officer. As for Bingham, although he was in charge of the 14th Amendment, he did not write the Citizenship Clause. Jacob Howe did. Bingham....

(cont) disagreed with the Clause quite publicly after it had been put in place. But that is nothing more than his opinion. The 14th Amendment is the law. Nowhere in the law is Natural Born Citizen defined in US law. None of these cases define it, not even incidentally. Finally, if you Birthers are so sure that NBC is defined by law the way you want it to be, how is it then that no one ever brought this up during the campaign? Last October, when McCain was trailing in the polls and heading...

(cont) into the final debate, why didn't he just mention that Obama isn't eligible to be President because his father was not a citizen? With all this case law that you claim makes your case, why did he and Hilary just allow this "Ineligible" opponent to beat them? When you can intelligently answer that, get back to me. Until then, don't talk about the law since you have no clue what it means.

None of those cases is primarily about NBC, which would have meant dealing with a challenge to a President's eligibility.

All of them incidentally DO repeat the same definition of a NBC, as understood by the Framers of 1787: "parentS" with an S.

But that does not make it law. Many cases before SCOTUS cite any number of sources, novels, foreign law, texts from centuries past, Shakespeare, etc. Just because something is mentioned in a case before SCOTUS does not make it law. The opinion of many legal scholars is that the Founders were indeed referencing de Vatel when they put the term NBC into the Constitution. But since it was never defined into law as such, it holds no weight. Your parents citizenship does not effect your eligibility.

"The Venus" explicitely quotes Vattel (1758):

"It is therefore of some importance to inquire how far the writers on that law consider the subjects of one power residing within the territory of another, as retaining their original character or partaking of the character of the nation in which they reside.
Vattel... is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other... says

"... The natives or indigènes are those born in the country of parentS who are citizens. "

Yes it does. It also cites The Jonge Clarissa, a novel by Samuel Richardson, De Juren Belli ac Paris by Hugo Grotius, a treatise on war and peace written 200 years prior, Sir William Scott, a high Judge in England and the case of the Citto, a Danish case about a ship traveling to Spain. All of these plus Vatel are used in the case. It does not make what is in them the law in the US. What you cite actually comes from the dissent, not the actual ruling of the case.

He never did.