Originally Posted by 11Series
To put the FINAL nail in this corpse filled coffin, if you are going to quote the dissenting opinion and back it, you should quote the all important conclusion of the dissenting opinion:
There would be no purpose in quoting that. It had nothing to do with the purpose of my quoting what I did, which was to show one reference to Vattel as an authoritative source in a Supreme Court case with which I had prior experience.
For your information, in my arguments referencing this case before, I was citing the majority opinion in that right of blood is insufficient without also right of soil in the establishment of natural born citizenship. The older, white-haired man in 2008 could not be a natural born Citizen of the U.S. because his right of soil was with foreign soil. Yet his case may have been much stronger than Obama's in laying claim to natural born Citizen status. It was certainly much more difficult to argue against than this case of Obama's.