[BP2]

> That failed bill included everything except the
> Vattel’s definition of a natural born citizen.

Yep. Yet strangely, WONG KIM ARK's discussion
on "natural born citizen" mirrors Vattel's definition and syntax:

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.

AS SUCH, where the Wong Kim Ark Opinion says "At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar", it reads MUCH MORE like Vattel's definition of "Natural Born Subject", NOT Blackstone's.

Restated: It sure the hell sounds like Justice Gray believes "common-law" is Vattel.

Hmmm...

[parsifal]

Dang! What a surprise! I wonder why that is?

parsy, who is feigning mock surprise

[Pilsner]

BP2 to ...Pilsner;...

SECOND REQUEST. PLEASE REMOVE ME FROM YOUR PING LIST. I HAVE NO INTEREST IN BEING PINGED WITH EVERY REFINEMENT OF YOUR CONSPIRACY THEORIES.

[Non-Sequitur]

Restated: It sure the hell sounds like Justice Gray believes "common-law" is Vattel.

Except that quote is from Justice Fuller's dissenting opinion and not the majority opinion written by Justice Gray. And as I assume you know, dissenting opinions are not binding, do not form precedent, and are not part of case law.

Link

[EnderWiggins]

Read the whole decision. That should quickly disabuse you of that goofy misconception.