Replies

"In fact, the term "citizen" was not used in England at the time of the revolution and for seveal hundred years before then."

How odd then that it took me less than 60 seconds to find an English text from 1774 that not only used the term "citizen," it actually used the whole phrase "natural born citizen."

Quintilian. Quintilian's Institutes of the Orator: In Twelve Books. Translated by J. Patsall. Vol. 2. London: Printed for B. Law and J. Wilkie, 1774. 31-2.

So... it appears that the term "citizen" was used in England at the time of the Revolution after all.

"The Supreme Court has never ruled that there is a precise analogy between the term 'natrual born citizen' in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 is the precise equivalent of 'native born subject.'"

Ignoring that the term used in Calvin's case was "natural born subject" and not "native born subject" you are close, but no cigar. While absent from any final ruling (since no such ruling has ever been required) the dicta in Wong Kim Ark is quite explicit that they are synonymous terms.

"Almost everyone who did particpate however was aware of Vattel's work and his use of the specific phrase 'natural born citizen.'"

This is not true. As has been repeatedly demonstrated, Vattel never once in his life can be shown to have used "the specific phrase 'natural born citizen.'"

In a translaltion about the Roman Republic. You have just highlighted why the term was not used in legal discussion and why it was used by Vattel and others who were read by the founders in relation to republics. The word uused in law cases and treatises was “subject.” In fact the founders were not unaware of the Roman Republic and what had happned to it.

Further, here is John Marshall, quoting Vattel in Marshall's opinion in The Venus, a concurring opinion in which he was joined by Livingston:

The citizens are membes of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. Thenatves,orindigenes, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subssit and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. You may recall tha the French word at issue was actually citoyen and that it became particularly prominent in use, after the fall of the French monarchy and the rise of the French Repuublic. In the use of this term the French revolutionaries reflected precisely its use here by our own revolutionaries

Are there trolls who do not misinform as badly as you do or are you the best they've got? I think your hopes of destroing our Constitution that you once swore to protect and defend are fading and you will not be able to keep the assault upon it going despite your clear desire to do so.

Somehow, I think that John Marshall, perhaps our greatest and most influential Chief Justice, was a bit better informed than yourself, writing from the bench in 1814.

The dicta is that they are precisely "analogous" for 14th Acmendment consideration purposes. As noted in Schneider v. Rusk that has nothing to do with Article II, Sectioin 1, Clause 5. I do get the cigar but you are nothing more than a disinformation troll in the soviet sense, and well over your head.