H. Brook Paige (pictured right) is back with another eligibility challenge in Vermont, this time against Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz. Readers may recall that Paige’s suit against Obama went all the way to the US Supreme Court. The lower court in that lawsuit made it clear that Emerich de Vattel is not where US citizenship gets its definition, concluding:
…the expression “natural born Citizen” is not dependent on the nationality of the parents but reflects the status of a person born into citizenship instead of having citizenship subsequently bestowed. The distinction is eminently logical.
The new challenge filed in Vermont Superior Court states that in 2012 no fewer than 4 ineligible candidates appeared on the ballot in Vermont (and in fact, 2 of them were unarguably ineligible due to their age). Today he is challenging Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio.
Despite the rebuff shown above, Paige once again claims that the definition of “natural born citizen” comes from a work of a Swiss jurist, Emerich de Vattel, and despite numerous Supreme Court precedents that the terms in the US Constitution are understood in the context of the English Common Law (Smith v. Alabama, Ex parte Grossman), he says that citizenship terms come from writers of “natural law.” Paige says that the Vattelian definition was imported into the American Common Law, again despite Supreme Court precedent that says there is no American Common Law.
Interested readers can read the whole complaint, but it’s pretty familiar ground. This action is: