It did too and that is the point. It was a determination aka decision aka resolution based upon the stated facts -- one of which was that he was born of "American citizens" [plural].
There is no such reference
Baloney, their use of the term "natural born citizen" follows the same meaning of the phrase as used by Vattel and Bingham.
it doesn't create any definition at all.
And why should it create anything??? It simply used the same old standard historical definition used by Vattel and Bingham that the Founding Fathers understood when they penned the words into the Constitution.
No, you are getting confused. The point wasn't about whether it bound the Senate not to object.
"Baloney"
OK. I say there is no reference to Vattel and you say "baloney". Great. Show me the reference and prove me wrong.
"And why should it create anything?"
Well, your entire point is that it establishes a definition, even if only for its own purposes. So now you are contradicting yourself.
"It simply used the same old standard historical definition used by Vattel and Bingham that the Founding Fathers understood when they penned the words into the Constitution."
No, it didn't use any of that. It simply recited the *facts* of McCain's birth, then declared him to be a natural born citizen.
I notice you avoided my point about the implications of your position. Go back and reconsider. If what you say were correct then only people born outside the country on military duty could be natural born citizens. Because that's what it says about McCain.
Also, the "standard" your are arguing for was NOT what was understood by Bingham or the Founding Fathers, and Vattel specifically noted that the rules in England were different.