The dregs of birther remainders.

[noblepa]

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that the VP becomes president the instant that the president is declared dead. The oath is not some magic spell that makes that person the prez. So, we are never without a president, even for a minute.

Its kind of like in the UK; "The King is dead. Long live the King!". The coronation comes later.

Remember when John Roberts screwed up the oath at Obama's first inauguration? A lot of birthers were saying that BHO wasn't president, because he had not recited the oath exactly as it is shown in the Constitution. They had Roberts come to the WH later in the day to re-administer the oath. The Constitution says that the new president takes office at 12 noon on January 20. Period.

[bob]

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that the VP becomes president the instant that the president is declared dead. The oath is not some magic spell that makes that person the prez. So, we are never without a president, even for a minute.

U.S. Const., amend. 25, sec. 1:

In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.

So a plain reading supports your reading. And it has never been tested in court, nor ever will be.

But who are we to ruin "DeMaio"'s fun?

IIRC, there was a related "concern" that Biden had taken the oath a few minutes early, i.e., when he was still just Private Citizen Joe.

[Sam the Centipede]

Its kind of like in the UK; "The King is dead. Long live the King!". The coronation comes later.

Slightly off-topic: most European monarchies don't have coronation ceremonies, perhaps a simple signing in, little more. As you say, the handover of office (monarch or president) occurs immediately so there is no interregnum.

These birther "experts" share the misguided view of sovcit "experts" that folderol and frippery define the validity of legal and constitutional process. They do not.

[pipistrelle]

What? No red fingerprints?

It's funny how the RULES must be adhered to TO THE LETTER, unless they're against them

[bob]

P&E: A Deeper Dive Into the nbC Pond:

Faithful P&E readers, two events precipitate this offering, which is intended to examine more closely one of the favorite “authorities” normally cited by the Left in its quest to redefine the term “natural born Citizen” as included by the Founders in Art. 2, § 1, Cl. 5 of the Constitution, the presidential “Eligibility Clause.”

The “authority” to be examined in this “deeper dive” is the March 2015 article produced by former U.S. Solicitors General Paul Clement (a Republican nominated by President George W. Bush) and Neal Katyal (a Democrat replacing Elena Kagan when President Obama elevated her to the Supreme Court) entitled “On the Meaning of Natural Born Citizen.” And because this dive will be detailed and lengthy, of necessity, it will need to be divided into sections and, accordingly, readers are encouraged to keep supplies of their favorite caffeinated beverage nearby.

* * *

The second event is the disclosure of a list of candidate debate qualifications or “criteria” recently announced by the Republican National Committee (“RNC”). That “vetting” document is intended to govern the upcoming debates among GOP candidates for nomination as that party’s choice for president. The very first requirement under the first “Candidate Status” category is: “Be eligible to run ([be a] natural born U.S. citizen, resident for 14+ years, 35 years or older).”

* * *

Look for Part 2 on Tuesday.

The only thing remotely notable is the GOP did, earlier this month, expressly say only natural-born citizens may participate in its first debate in Milwaukee in August.

But there are other criteria, so the birthers' bugaboos (i.e., Haley, Ramaswamy) might be relegated to the undercard debate following the main one.

But if Haley and Ramaswamy participate in even the lesser debate, expect teeth to gash and garments to rend. Laity and Kerchner might even randomly send out some sternly worded letters!

At least Rondeau had the good sense to serialize DeMaio's latest wall of text.

Bonus: P&E: How Can We Make America Great Again When Everyone Lies and Hides the Truth from Us?:

BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA (the undocumented, constitutionally ineligible, and unqualified 44th “president”) . . . .

[bob]

P&E: A Deeper Dive Into the nbC Pond

P&E: A Deeper Dive Into the nbC Pond, Part 2:

And even more recently – i.e., June 15, 2023 – three Supreme Court Justices of widely differing philosophies and judicial temperaments concurred in Haalland v. Brackeen [...], that reference today to de Vattel was both prudent and proper. The case involved the interpretation of the Indian Child Welfare Act (“ICWA”) under the Constitution for, among other issues, the proposition that even conquered indigenous nations, including the Indian nations of North America following European colonization, retained their “self-governing” sovereignty over their internal affairs. In his concurrence with the majority opinion holding that the ICWA was not unconstitutional as an invasion of “states’ rights,” Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson, cited de Vattel and The Law of Nations for its principles related to the retained self-governing powers of Native American tribal nations.

The rest is nothing, like you've seen before, i.e., "Vattel! Vattel! Vattel!"

"For completeness": SCOTUS:

When the British crossed the Atlantic, they brought with them their own legal understandings. A seasoned colonial power, Britain was no stranger to the idea of “tributary” and “feudatory” states. E. de Vattel, Law of Nations 60–61 (1805) (Vattel).

* * *

For that reason, early “history furnishes no example, from the first settlement of our country, of any attempt on the part of the [C]rown to interfere with the internal affairs of the Indians.” [Citation]; see also Vattel 60. . . .

Such violations were taken seriously; as offenses against “the laws of nations,” they provoked the Indians and provided “just causes of war.” The Federalist No. 3, at 44 (J. Jay); see also 2 E. de Vattel, The Law of Nations §§71–76, pp. 161–163 (J. Chitty ed. 1876).

Gorsuch briefly cited Vattel for some rudimentary background on sovereignty, ergo, Obama is an usurper.

[bob]

P&E: A Deeper Dive Into the nbC Pond

P&E: A Deeper Dive Into the nbC Pond, Part 2

P&E: A Deeper Dive Into the nbC Pond, Part 3:

CONCLUSION

* * *

At bottom, a final resolution of the question will come only if one or the other of two events occurs: (1) the Supreme Court accepts a live, ripe “case or controversy” directly addressing the nbC issue and agrees to rule on it, either (a) reaffirming its WKA decision and the “citizen at/by birth” theory or (b) adopting the de Vattel § 212 nbC definition; or (2) a constitutional amendment is proposed and ratified either repealing and removing the nbC restriction altogether or clarifying which of the two competing nbC definitions to which the Republic will continue to adhere.

At least for those born in the United States, everyone but the three remaining birthers have "resolved" the issue.

And, at this point, I doubt even a SCOTUS decision or constitutional amendment would satisfy the three remaining birthers.

"For completeness," this series of articles primarily critiques natural-born citizenship for those born abroad, a condition affecting exactly zero serious contenders for the presidency in 2024.

[Luke]

WTH!?!? Only THREE parts? We need to demand more installments of this breaking, timely news story.

[bob]

Kerchner's blog: Vivek Ramaswamy NOT a “natural born Citizen” of the United States to Constitutional Standards – NOT Constitutionally Eligible to Be President and Commander-in-Chief of Our Military:

Vivek Ramaswamy refuses as of the date of this article to answer direct questions regarding the citizenship and/or immigration status of his parents when he was born in 1985 in Ohio and/or exactly what year did his parents immigrate from India to the USA. And a third question that needs to be answered is if Vivek now holds dual citizenship or has he ever been held dual citizenship, i.e., in his case in both India and the United States.

After months of trying to get an answer from him via various contact modes, it is obvious he is deliberately evading answering such questions. Thus we must assume he does not want to answer those questions because he fears the true answers will be politically detrimental to his political aspirations. . . .

Based on the public information available at this time, and the fact that Vivek is evading answering direct questions on the matter, it has thus been deduced that both of Vivek Ramaswamy’s parents were not U.S. Citizens in 1985 when Vivek was born.

P&E comments:

Yeah, well Barry was born in Kenya and his own brother posted his REAL birth certificate on the internet. It has his footprint on it and it is genuine, as opposed to the ridiculous fake pristine looking fake live birth document presented by the Hawaiian democrat party.
He got to be president, and he is still, to this day, using a fake SS number.

Has it been confirmed as “genuine?”

* * *

CDR Kerchner’s ‘three-legged stool” observations are on target. As questions continue to swirl around the natural born Citizen (“nbC”) eligibility status of Republicans Vivek Ramaswamy — as well as Nikki Haley — we still have yet to hear formally from the Republican National Committee (“RNC”) as to which nbC definition it will be enforcing for its upcoming August GOP presidential candidate debates in Milwaukee.

* * *

Do not be surprised if the RNC takes the easy way out and goes with option “b”…, move along…, nothing to see here….. Respectfully, there is a lot to see here if one is only willing to look. The selection of option “b” will undercut the argument that Kamala Harris, like Ramaswamy and Haley, is also very likely ineligible. Regarding the potential that the RNC will foolishly choose option “b,” to quote former President George H.W. Bush: “Wouldn’t be prudent.”

[realist]

Nothing, like we've seen before.

[bob]

P&E: Three Simple Questions:

Those questions are: (1) where, exactly, was the cocaine first discovered, as opposed to where the “oddly evasive” White House Press Secretary Karine (“Voodoo Doll”) Jean-Pierre ....

"DeMaio" is repeating the racism from this Federalist article. (The Federalist is a site run by Mr. Meagan McCain, and not affiliated with the society.)

[bob]

A birther was correct for once!

[bob]

[Ben-Prime]

When you post an anti-Obot 'zinger' with an avatar of an actual sci-fi robot.

[Sam the Centipede]

Poor deluded Mick. The reasons for Teh Fogbo to be "pro-Obama" evaporated some years ago.

One and a bit presidential terms ago.

Or, for pedants, one criminal term and a bit of a presidential term ago.

[noblepa]

No court has directly addressed the issue of the meaning of the term "Natural Born Citizen" in the context of the Presidency. So far, all of the accusations against Obama, Harris and others depend mostly on the Vattel definition of NBC, so there is a little (very little) room for disagreement as to whether or not they are NBCs.

Just a little thought experiment here. What might happen if someone, say Arnold Schwartzeneger, who was not born in the US and whose parents were clearly not US citizens, managed to be elected to the office? There can be no question that such a person is NOT an NBC.

Would SCOTUS take the case and not punt it as a political question?

Would Congress decline to certify the electoral votes?

[bob]

Facially ineligible candidates can and have been excluded from ballots. Especially in states that require candidates to self-certify their eligibility.

If a serious yet ineligible candidate somehow got on a ballot, a competitor could sue (and would have standing to sue in federal court).

Ayyadurai may be a good test case for 2024. Assuming his sham campaign is still around next year, we'll see how the states and the parties handle him.

Ayyadurai isn't seeking a party's nomination, so he could appear only on the November 2024 ballot. But I suspect a state will bar him from a ballot, he'll lose (if he goes to SCOTUS, it'll just deny cert ), and that will be that.

[Suranis]

No court has directly addressed the issue of the meaning of the term "Natural Born Citizen" in the context of the Presidency. So far, all of the accusations against Obama, Harris and others depend mostly on the Vattel definition of NBC, so there is a little (very little) room for disagreement as to whether or not they are NBCs.

Which is kinda cool becasue Vattel never defined NBC at all. It was actually a mistranslation in the early 1800s. Vattel used the term Parens where others wrote NBC which corresponds to "blood relatives."

And even then 2 paragraphs later he said "there are places, such as England, where Birth is the sole consideration for citizenship." So he made it clear his definitions dont apply to English law.

Hell, even in the same paragraph, he gives a different definition of citizenship

This is the French Lawyer Lupin's translation of the Paragraph, from Doc Conspiracys site.

https://www.obamaconspiracy.org/bookmar ... he-french/

For argument’s sake and to save everyone some time here is my annotated translation of that famous Book 1, XIX. Art. 212 of Vattel which the birthers rely on:

Book 1, xix. $212. Citizens are members of a civil society (1) and are linked to said society by certain duties and since they subject to its authorities, they enjoy some of its rewards. Natives or indigenes (2) are those born in that country from blood relatives (3) who are already citizens. (4) A society being only able to survive and perpetuate itself through the children of its citizens, said children inherit the status of their fathers and all their rights and obligations. (5) A society is supposed to want this as a consequence of its own desire for self-perpetuation and one shall assume that each citizen who becomes a member of said society will by right bequeath that same status to his own children. (6) The homeland (7) of the fathers (8) will therefore also be that of their children, and they become citizens in turn by simple tacit consent. We shall see later if, when they reach their majority, they can renounce their rights and what then they owe to the society in which they were born. I say that to belong to a homeland, one must be born of fathers who are citizens. (9) For if you are born of a foreigner, then that country is your place of birth without being your homeland.(10)

(1) Note Vattel does not say country (pays) when he could have. So an assumption must be made here.
(2) At no point does Vattel equate them with “citizens” despite the last sentence of the paragraph, so there is ambiguity here; there is also no reason to assume this means “natural-born” when English has words like “Natives” and “Indigenes” which are closer literal translations.
(3) in French, “parens”
(4) Taken literally this means everyone who is a native is indeed a citizen, hence the distinction between “nbc” and just citizen is wrong.
(5) This reaffirms the point made in (4). This is simple jus sanguinis with no further distinctions being made.
(6) Ditto.
(7) Vattel uses the word “patrie” (homeland) and not “pays” (country); it is a mistake to just equate one with the other, especially when Vattel could have used the other word.
(8) This is when Vattel first uses the word “père” (father) in French in the first edition.
(9) Ditto. This of course depending on one’s interpretation contradicts the beginning of this paragraph.
(10) This is where the difference between “country” and “homeland” comes to play, to the effect that (as was the case with Ancient Greece, esp. Athens; I refer you to what I wrote here on that topic several months ago) one might be a citizen of a country, and still not be a son or daughter of the homeland. We are now veering into distinctions of citizenship which are not elucidated further by Vattel and frankly contradict his opening paragraph.

Ultimately the point is: there is not and indeed CANNOT BE a uniformly acceptable translation of Vattel, because certain assumptions may vary, and they do matter a lot in a case like this. The most charitable thing I can say (being kind) in that the “version” used by Apuzzo and Donofrio is, say, 75% heavily loaded against, and 25% actually incorrect.

[bob]

Which is kinda cool becasue Vattel never defined NBC at all.

P&E comment:

Chief Justice William Rehnquist in Sugarman v. Dougall concurred that the term “natural born citizen” refers to someone who is a citizen at birth, rather than someone who becomes a citizen through naturalization. He cited Vattell, an 18th-century Swiss jurist who wrote that “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.” Rehnquist also cited Luria v. United States, which held that “the term ‘natural-born citizen’ has been used in English law for centuries and in American law since the first Naturalization Act” and that “it is doubtful that any court would today depart from this long-established meaning.”

This fractal wrongness is rather impressive.

Preliminarily, Associate Justice Rehnquist dissented in Sugarman.

But even in his dissent, Rehnquist cited neither Vattel or Luria. And Luria doesn't say what was quoted.

Some jerk* would correct these obvious mistakes, but is still baned at the P&E.


*

[keith]

Which is kinda cool becasue Vattel never defined NBC at all.

Sorry, I almost fired up a flaming repost to your post because I was misreading your intent. I had to read you about 4 times before I got your point.

I maybe a bit slow today.

[bob]

P&E: The Presidential Candidacy of Shiva Ayyadurai:

First, unlike some other eligibility-challenged candidates, Dr. Ayyadurai is not actually claiming that he is a “natural born Citizen” (“nbC”) as seemingly plainly required by Art. 2, § 1, Cl. 5 of the Constitution, the presidential “Eligibility Clause.” Instead, he is candidly admitting up front that he is a naturalized U.S. citizen but that, as such, the Fifth Amendment (1791), coupled with the 14th Amendment (1868) in effect “repealed” or at minimum modified the nbC restriction of Art. 2, § 1, Cl. 5 limiting eligibility exclusively to an nbC.

This is an easy layup, so "DeMaio" of course has to struggle with something straightforward.

In support of his position, Dr. Ayyadurai cites an “adjunct professor of philosophy” at Hudson County Community College, Jersey City, New Jersey (the college website identifies him as an “instructor”), one Paul Clark,* and a 2006 law review article he wrote entitled “Limiting the Presidency to Natural Born Citizens Violates Due Process.” The article appears at 39 John Marshall Law Review 1343 (2006). After citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Bolling v. Sharpe (holding that racial segregation in District of Columbia public schools was unconstitutional), Prof. Clark states:

Ten years after Bolling, in Schneider v. Rusk, [377 U.S. 163 (1964)], the Court declared unconstitutional a statute that revoked the citizenship of naturalized citizens who lived abroad but did not revoke the citizenship of ‘natural born citizens’ in the exact same circumstances. The [Schneider] Court held that:

This statute proceeds on the impermissible assumption that naturalized citizens as a class are less reliable and bear less allegiance to this country than do the native born. This is an assumption that is impossible for us to make. Moreover, while the Fifth Amendment contains no equal protection clause, it does forbid discrimination that is so unjustifiable as to be violative of due process. A native-born citizen is free to reside abroad indefinitely without suffering loss of citizenship. The discrimination aimed at naturalized citizens drastically limits their rights to live and work abroad in a way that other citizens may. It creates indeed a second-class citizenship.

This should be the end of the story. Schneider is clear that treating natural born citizens and naturalized citizens differently is contrary to the Fifth Amendment. Forbidding naturalized citizens from being president or vice president is a form of discrimination that limits their options and treats them as second-class citizens.

In fact, the Court in Schneider itself begins its opinion thusly (377 U.S. at 165):

We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the ‘natural born’ citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II, s 1. (Emphasis added)

* * *

Accordingly, there is no internal inconsistency in the Schneider opinion and, accordingly, there is also no basis for Dr. Ayyadurai’s claim or the law review article’s argument that Schneider supports the eligibility of naturalized citizens like him. Indeed, it confirms just the opposite.

* * *

If that result is to be changed, the Supreme Court will need to either overrule Schneider or, at minimum, clarify it. And whether there is enough time left before the 2024 general election to succeed in convincing a lower court – and thereafter the Supreme Court – to accept jurisdiction over the issue is, of course, a debatable issue.

* * *

On the other hand, if Dr. Ayyadurai is serious about his quest, he should begin soon in attempting to get his name on the various states’ ballots and/or his issue before the Supreme Court. Until he becomes a viable “candidate,” as confirmed or demonstrated by polls, debates, donations etc. – as did Alan Keyes in his 2008 challenge to Barack Obama – his claims and arguments will not be “ripe” or “justiciable” and the Court would likely rule – no surprise here – that he lacks “standing.” But as they say, nothing ventured, nothing gained.

And if he fails to climb the mountain looming before him…, a not unlikely outcome…, perhaps he could consider taking a clue from Virginia Minor. After losing her case in the Supreme Court, she became a leading “suffragette,” predating even Susan B. Anthony. Ayyadurai could launch a campaign to amend the Constitution if he thinks there are enough states (38) that would ratify it…, hey, it worked to end Prohibition.

* To be fair, Clark has a Ph.D(!) from Uni. of Chicago(!), graduated from Chicago Law(!) Order of the Coif(!), and then clerked for a 9th Circuit judge(!). So his door law and teaching community-college-level philosophy is ... curious.

[bob]

I was poking around and stumbled up this:

Jonathan Turley's blog (in 2011): Holdings, Dicta, And Stare Decisis:

Consider the example found in Minor v. Happersett (1875), a Supreme Court case dealing with the constitution of the State of Missouri that ordains: “Every male citizen of the United States shall be entitled to vote.” The following passage is from J. Waite’s opinion:

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.

Portland Examiner contributor Dianna Cotter claims the reference to the natural-born citizen clause in this passage is part of the holding. The Wikipedia entry correctly identifies this reference as obiter dictum.

Now Drumm was not an attorney, but Turley published this, without comment or dissent.

And in the epic (1000+) comments section, you'll see a few familiar names.


* Drumm's obit.

[noblepa]

I was poking around and stumbled up this:

Jonathan Turley's blog (in 2011): Holdings, Dicta, And Stare Decisis:

Consider the example found in Minor v. Happersett (1875), a Supreme Court case dealing with the constitution of the State of Missouri that ordains: “Every male citizen of the United States shall be entitled to vote.” The following passage is from J. Waite’s opinion:

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.

Portland Examiner contributor Dianna Cotter claims the reference to the natural-born citizen clause in this passage is part of the holding. The Wikipedia entry correctly identifies this reference as obiter dictum.

Now Drumm was not an attorney, but Turley published this, without comment or dissent.

And in the epic (1000+) comments section, you'll see a few familiar names.


* Drumm's obit.

And no matter what mental gymnastics I use, I can not find a way to read that paragraph from Minor to say the ONLY children born to citizen parents are themselves citizens.

The only way that passage can be interpreted the way the birthers do, is to accept the premise that the word "includes" excludes all else, which we all know is not true. It is the same logic. ". . . it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also." This only gives the birthers' desired interpretation if it is read to mean that all other children are not citizens.

One thing that I find a little confusing is that surely a Supreme Court Justice, writing the majority opinion in this case, would know that it is not necessary to depend on "some authorities" to find that anyone born on US soil, regardless of parentage, is a citizen. By the time that Minor was heard, the 14th Amendment had been ratified, and it explicitly states that such children are, in fact, citizens.

In fact, IIRC (its been a while since I read the entire ruling), Minor never uses the phrase "Natural Born Citizen". Virginia Minor was not trying to run for President. She was only trying to claim the right to vote, which she believed was granted her by the 14th.

To me, the important idea of the ruling is that voting is NOT a right of citizenship. Even though it was never questioned that she was a citizen, and that the 14th said that states could not deny anyone the rights of a citizen, the court, nevertheless, denied her the right to vote.

[realist]

In fact, IIRC (its been a while since I read the entire ruling), Minor never uses the phrase "Natural Born Citizen". Virginia Minor was not trying to run for President. She was only trying to claim the right to vote, which she believed was granted her by the 14th.

Her position as a citizen, a natrual born citizen, was a conceded (perhaps stipulated) fact in the lower court. The question of her citizenship was never before SCOTUS.

[bob]

And no matter what mental gymnastics I use, I can not find a way to read that paragraph from Minor to say the ONLY children born to citizen parents are themselves citizens.

SCOTUS said this: "At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners."

Rearranging and trimming it slightly: Natural-born citizens (or natives) doubtlessly are children born in a country of parents who were its citizens.

The expression of one reasonably could be read also to mean the exclusion of all others.

The only way that passage can be interpreted the way the birthers do, is to accept the premise that the word "includes" excludes all else, which we all know is not true. It is the same logic. ". . . it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also." This only gives the birthers' desired interpretation if it is read to mean that all other children are not citizens.

Well, yes; there are people who believe the U.S. Constitution (including the 14th Amendment) does not convey birthright citizenship.

Birthers also believe citizens are inferior to natural-born citizens, as it is possible to be born a U.S. citizen but not a natural-born citizen.

One thing that I find a little confusing is that surely a Supreme Court Justice, writing the majority opinion in this case, would know that it is not necessary to depend on "some authorities" to find that anyone born on US soil, regardless of parentage, is a citizen. By the time that Minor was heard, the 14th Amendment had been ratified, and it explicitly states that such children are, in fact, citizens.

As birthers point out, the 14th Amendment has the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" clause. At that point in history, there was a "debate" about what that meant, i.e., some believed it would exclude those born in the United States to non-citizen parents.

What I find confusing is Waite's "It was never doubted..." sentences do read like a rough paraphrase of Vattel. But Vattel was never part of the common law; Vattel acknowledged citizenship is different under the common law. Waite didn't expressly say Vattel was part of the common law, but it is a reasonable inference that still is factually wrong.

To me, the important idea of the ruling is that voting is NOT a right of citizenship. Even though it was never questioned that she was a citizen, and that the 14th said that states could not deny anyone the rights of a citizen, the court, nevertheless, denied her the right to vote.

Which is why "DeMaio" has such a hard-on for "judicial dictum," a purportedly special kind of dicta that is somehow binding and authoritative. "DeMaio" can acknowledge the birthers' favorite paragraph is obiter dictum (because it isn't necessary to the holding), but also still insist it is judicial dictum because it explains a term in the U.S. Constitution.