I used "arms" as an example of where the Constitution mentions a word, but doesn't add all the specific details.
I point out that sometimes the details are contained within the choice of the word used. "Arms" is an example of this.
So where are you coming from blathering on about Arms and Switzerland?
When I write, I try to make my points simple enough for people to understand. Clearly in this case I failed, because your questions reveal you didn't follow what I said at all.
I despair of being able to make the point more clearly. I can try to reiterate it, arranging the words differently, but if it didn't make sense to you before, I'm thinking I won't be successful in conveying the idea to you on a second try.
And you are not alone in not being able to make sense of this particular point I have attempted to make. It seems that it is a hard point to get across for some reason.
Our usage of the word "Citizen" comes from Switzerland. Why is this important? Because of Emmerich Vattel, who explains the meaning of "Citizen" quite clearly in his book "Law of Nations."
Vattel is from Switzerland, and Switzerland was a Republic at the time, which makes it the only place in the world that used the word "Citizen" instead of "Subjects."
Our founders *PICKING* the word "citizen" means they were following Vattel's definition.
If we were following the common law of England, they would have kept the word "Subjects."
They picked *CITIZEN*. Therefore it is defined by Vattel's definition.
I get your point about subjects and citizens.
What the Founders meant to do (and failed) was use the Old English concept of Natural Born Citizenship.
Which means one must be born as a US citizen. AND both parents must also be born as US citizens.