I think The Fogbow should present this challenge to Haskins or Kerchner. One of them would be pitted against Loren or Ballantine. Each have one hour to find as many sources as they can supporting their "theory" of the definition of NBC. It would occur at a large municipal or university library. The one with the most legitimate* sources would win. Think Dean or Charlie would accept?

* Published before 2008 in textbook, law journal, law or government article, etc.

Thanks Ballantine - Blackstone does seem to be the root since he regards the Acts as "naturalizing" the children born abroad.

BTW Loh , I noticed in passing that Blackstone was of the opinion that the Edward III statute required both parents to be subjects.

I don't think anyone is sure. Clive Parry writing in the 1950s was of the opinion that in the 17th century it was considered to only require one subject parent but that subsequent Acts restricted this to at least a subject father. On the other hand I see a rush of naturalization acts after the English Civil War refering to people who IMO would be subjects by De Natis ultra Mare anyway. My own view is that there was something of a loss of confidence in the staute of Edward III (not II) in the mid 17th century.

To: DiogenesLamp

You said: "A common thread among all the anti-Vattel conservative intellectuals is that their explanation of their position always seems to be:"Shut Up! That's why!"

Do you know why smart conservative people (like me!!!) tell you Vattle Birthers that??? It is because your arguments are TOTALLY STUPID and you are embarrassing us. That is why I wrote my very first anti-Vattle Birther Internet Article over a year ago. (Which was not just "shut up" but "Vattel Birthers Should Just STFU!!!) Which I am glad I looked up because of the linky thingys were broken.

Anyway, why I wrote it was because I would be on a thread somewhere just kicking Obotski all around the place with "Why wouldn't Obama cough it up unless he had something to hide???" and here would come some stupid Vattle Birther with that 2 parent stupid phony stuff and there would go the whole thread talking about something stupid from 17oo whatever that was way before the Wong Kim Art case thing. And, as usual, the Obots would gang up on the stupid Vattle Birther and just clobber him and tease him to death for being sooo stupid.

Sooo this got tiring. Because really just stop and think about it. Why, if the Vattle Birthers are right, are there just 1 or 2 conservative and republican lawyers in the whole country agreeing with you??? And no judges. Why is it Ann Coulter, and Rush Limbaugh, and now Mark Levin, and who knows who else telling you to knock it off with the stupid "Birther crap"??? Our laws are NOT secret, and everybody, regardless of the citizenship of their parents, can just go online and read it.

Why, if you are right, do you have to run like little scaredy cat girls from the Wong Kim Ark thingy and the Indiana thingy??? Because I have read the Indiana case thing like 10 times or more just this last week, and there is nothing wild or far out in there. They just quote Supreme Court stuff. Meanwhile, you Vattle Birthers are over there in Europe and Switzerland and France and Saxony digging up dead Europeans to back you up.

It is going to get even worse on now that Rubio and Jindle are being talked about, because now, I bet more and more conservative people are going to come right out and tell you "Knock off this stupid birther crap" and "There is no debate" and "This site is for "RATIONAL" people.

This should be your "sign" that you have become taken over by a CULT!!!

520 posted on 10/01/2011 12:23:21 PM PDT by Squeeky ("Truth is so rare that it is delightful to tell it. " Emily Dickinson)

To: butterdezillion

You said: “The Minor v Happersett court didn’t decide the issue of NBC because it was outside the scope of the case. . .”

Well, you are right about this but you better tell the other Vattle Birthers because they just swear this case is the one that proves their whole theory. But, I think you are wrong on all the other stuff you said.

541 posted on 10/01/2011 5:26:32 PM PDT by Squeeky ("Truth is so rare that it is delightful to tell it. " Emily Dickinson)

Your theory would yield the bizarre conclusion that John McCain, born in Panama while his parents were serving in the nation's interest, has not sufficient allegiance to be considered loyal enough to be President, while Barry, born to a foreign father (so they say) and raised for many years in a foreign country with a foreign culture (not even English, Aussie, or Canadian) with not demonstrably reliable proof that he *IS* even born inside the borders, is.

From that same thread:

But we're not xenophobic racists!

Many years? He lived for many years in a foreign country?

Well dang. Guess I did to. Does that make me foreign?

Ordered that, hereafter, no person, not being a natural born, or naturalized citizen of the United States, shall be admitted as an attorney or counselor of this court.

So there were only two kinds of citizens in 1806. Natural born and naturalized.

Either that, or the New York courts were willing to let naturalized citizens practice law, but not "native-born" citizens of non-citizen parents.