[AmericanVictory]

You continue to ignore that Wong Kim Ark was about the 14th Amendment and its use of the word "citize" is strictly in that context. It has nothing to do with Article II, Section 1, Clause 5's phrase. And Marxhall's quote dirictly refers to the concept in Vattel of the "citizen" who is native born, a phrase used also by Vattel in other parts of his 1756 treatise with which the founders were so familiar and which was the subject of much discussion.

You apparently have not read the actual case of The Venus, not surprisingly, either that our you do not understand what it says. It is much about citizenship as an essential element of the controversy between prize claimant and defendants.

Either you are extemely dense or just stupid. First you cite something Cicero said about the Roman Re;ublic as if it were English common law and then you engage in disinformation by saying that I said, which I did not, that the French invented the term "citizen" at the time of their revolution. As you pointed out it goes back to Rome and classical Greece. You may have heard of the Latin word "cives."

You seem to be historically quite ignorant. Let me point out that the great struggle at the time of our Revolution was between republicanism and monarchism. Under monarchies the law discussed "subjects" as in subjects of the King as lord, dating back to feudalism. By contrast we and the French revoloutionaries looked intitially, before the excesses of the French Revolution, upon ourselves as fellow republicans in an otherwsie monarchistic world, as citizens of a Republic, like all those that Madison studied under Witherspoon and of whose demise at the nands of demagogues and foreign influences they were quire keenly aware and very concerned about. That is the point, which you seem to assidiously miss and misrepresent. It is kind of like misrepresenting that the ancient Roman Republic concept of citizen of Rome is a term of English common law of the 1700's.

Is it beyond your comprehension to see that Marshall was precisely, in the quote from Vattel that he used, quoting Vattel's concept of being a "citizen" who is natural born in the sense of being the child of a citizen father and mother? Perhaps you have dyslexia and cannot comprehend phrasing that means the same in more words than the more concise "natural born citizen."

You seem to take pride in trolling for those who would destroy our Constitution and doing it with such lack of comprehension and delight in misinforming. History will expose the fraud for whom you troll. You must be concerned that he and his Ci-cago gang won't be able to use you and others like you to destroy the Constitution and that it will not only be saved but will save the day as it was designed to do, against essentially foreign influences and demagogues who can, at least temporarily, stir up the masses.

[EnderWiggins]

"You continue to ignore that Wong Kim Ark was about the 14th Amendment and its use of the word "citize" is strictly in that context."

Such a claim cannot be honestly maintained by anyone who has read the actual decision. It contains what remains to this day the most comprehensive treatment in any Supreme Court Decision regarding the origin and history of American citizenship law, and it deals with the definition of "natural born citizen" in exhaustive detail. To pretend otherwise is just whistling past the graveyard.

Certainly, its discussion of NBC is not lost on other judges. I refer you to the recent decision in Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana in which the panel of Appeals Court Judges unanimously cited WKA in their decision regarding the Article II meaning of NBC.

There is very little ambiguity to be found in:

"Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents."

You are equally confused regarding the Venus case. The reason for consulting de Vattel had nothing to do with his opinions on citizenship, it had entirely to do with his opinions on domicile. Yes... I know that Birthers confuse those too, but real jurists and lawyers do not.

Now... it is sad that your inability to comprehend Case Law is matched by your inability to comprehend your opponent's posts. I never attribute to malice that which is more easily explained by ignorance, but if you think I "quoted Cicero" in any relation to English common law you are certainly lost in the woods. It was quoted to demonstrate in as direct a manner as possible that you had no idea what you were talking about when you claimed there was no use of the term "citizen" in England.

Your gloss of the historical conflict between "republicanism and monarchism" might be interesting were it not completely irrelevant. The terms subject and citizen are still exactly synonymous, as the Supreme Court has so eloquently assured us all.

Now, if you have something other than irrelevant pedantry to add to the discussion, come on back. But I feel no obligation to follow you over the precipice into prolix meaninglessness.