Why are you quoting the DISSENTING opinion on the LOSING side of US v Wong Kim Ark? Do you not know that you are proving your claims wrong, because you are quoting the losing side of a case where the US Supreme Court ruled exactly opposite of what the dissenting judges said?
Or did you think we were stupid enough not to realize you left out this part of your quote:
"MR. CHIEF JUSTICE FULLER, with whom concurred MR. JUSTICE HARLAN dissenting.
I cannot concur in the opinion and judgment of the court in this case. "
You can turn to some Frenchie-Swiss frog if you want to, but it doesn't mean jack. The WINNING side of the US v. Wong Kim Ark DISAGREES with you. Now I've explained to you how SCOTUS has ruled in the United States, whether you want to understand or not. If you choose to side with French, against SCOTUS, you are completely out in left field.
Besides, the original French text that Vattel wrote in doesn't even contain the phrase "natural born citizen". That doesn't appear until the English translations created AFTER the US Constitution was penned. Vattel wrote “Les Naturels ou indegenes”. Any attempt to use Vattel as a glossary definition of a phrase he never wrote is fraudulent at best.
Vattel also didn't believe in Freedom of the Press, or Freedom of Religion, saying "all men are bound to serve God, the entire nation in her national capacity is doubtless bound to serve and honour Him." so he obviously was ignored when the constitution was written.
And even Vattel recognizes that common law of other states in the late 1700's did NOT follow his political theories he wrote in his book:
“Finally, there are states, as, for instance, England, where the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalizes the children of a foreigner.”
So you are even wrong on your reading of the LOSING side of the SCOTUS ruling in US v. Wong Kim Ark.
Did you think you could defraud us into believing that the dissenting opinion was the majority opinion?
Last edited by 11Series; 06-02-2011 at 12:58 AM.