[AmericanVictory]

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.

[EnderWiggins]

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

But did you read that excerpt before posting it? Because (ignoring that the Venus case was about Admiralty Law and not citizenship) that de Vattel quotation never mentions "natural born citizens" once.

"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."

Certainly you are not suggesting that it was an invention of French revolutionaries? That would be a neat trick, since our revolution came first, and the French learned the universal application of the term "citizen" from us, not the other way around. And looking at a map should remind you how closely England and France have been involved with each other since before the Norman Invasion

According to etymological dictionaries, the word goes back in England to at least the 14th Century.

And again... the Supreme Court has not been ambiguous on the fact that subject and citizen are exactly synonymous. Here are two excerpts from Wong Kim Ark on that issue:

"All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England"

and

"The term "citizen," as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term "subject" in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people, and he who before as a "subject of the king" is now "a citizen of the State."

So... there ya go.

"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."

I agree. I can only chalk it up to my good fortune that he and I concur that de Vattel did not say "natural born citizen."