That's so pathetic. BirfoonBoy thinks a birfoon web site is an authority on US law. Alexander Gofen is a birfoon who spouts Vattel as US law but doesn't even understand Vattel. Does BirfoonBoy believe a birfoon website's declarations constitute binding authority?<quoted text>
See if you can wrap your little 6 year old mind around this. Plain, simple and true! LMAO! Will it ever dawn on the 6 year old that he has soiled himself? How's that grass hut condo doing? Still standing? Got your "seed" money saved up? LMAO!
Clue: Nowhere does Vattel claim that natural born citizens must have two citizen parents. Indeed, Vattel claims the citizenship of the children follow that of the father, a rule that was never practiced in the United States.
If Vattel's rule had been the law in the US, children of e.g., French or German immigrants would have been ALIENS. Obviously not the rule that was followed in this country. Why cannot the birfoon cite ONE CASE where a person born in the US after ratification of the Constitution was denied intestate inheritance on the basis of alienage per Vattel?
Sorry Mr. Play Justice.
Unlike the status of children born in the US who are natural born citizens per binding precedent (even if born of alien parents), there is no binding precedent governing putative natural born citizen status of children born beyond US jurisdiction.
The Play Justice seems to believe that the court by not addressing the status of children of citizens born beyond jurisdiction of the US somehow negated it's clear declaration,“we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are 'natural born Citizens' for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”
Will it ever dawn on the practitioners of Play Law? I doubt it.