[CpnHook]

he fact that the case is about what happens to the property of such a foreigner when the country of which he is a citizen turns from being at peace with the U.S. to being at war with the U.S. does not change the fact that Marshall viewed the law of nations as separating the natural born or indigenes from those whose loyalties are split.

Despite your creative exegesis of Marshall’s words, you still lack any statement by him to the effect Vattel supplies the rule of law on birth citizenship in the U.S.

It can be very difficult to persuade a person who believes they see something that the something isn't there. (Those ninja frogmen appear in post-crash photos and won't leave.) But let me approach this from a different angle.

In his dissent in U.S. v Wong Kim Ark, Chief Justice Fuller was urging that Vattel's natural born citizen rule (as opposed to the majority s common law rule) provide the decision in the case. Yet Fuller says nothing about John Marshall and The Venus. Now, if Marshall were saying what you claim for him, then Fuller absolutely blew a great opportunity to bolster his argument by showing his illustrious predecessor likewise cited to Vattel for the American rule on citizenship.

But Chief Justice Fuller knew Chief Justice Marshall didn't say that. You're merely seeing what's not there.

[AmericanVictory]

Wong Kim Ark is not about presidential eligibility. Fuller's dissent in it is based on what he knew was the founder's view on citizenship, the same as what Story said in Shanks v. Dupont. All three are in accord. The view was widely held and so there was no need for Fuller to quote Marshall. You are arguing that a failure to mention Marshall indicates disagreement with Marshall. It is a weak argument, to say the least. I don't think you have any actual quote from a decision or a founder that indicates that the English common law was used to determine issues of citizenship. A "subject" is not a "citizen." Citizens are not subjects; they are the sovereign in our republic. The British impression of American seamen that precipitated the War of 1812 was a stark illustration of the difference between the concept of "subjects" of a monarch and "citizens" of a republic. It is you who are projecting your wishes. I refer you to the well known letter of John Jay.