[AmericanVictory]

You thus admit that Blackstone did not use the specific phrase at issue, which is "natural born citizen." A natural born "subject" of the king in England is not the same as the phrase actually chosen. Schneider v. Rusk as quoted in Craig plainly says that "citizenship" does not and cannot alter the meaning of the consciously chosen phrase in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5. Fuller's dissent was about citizenship and the common law. Neither the dissent nor the majority opinions in Wong Kim Ark dealt with the phrase in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5. Neither do you. Yuo keep avoiding the actual issue based on the surmise, which is not supported by the notes of those who were in the constitutional convention, that the framers were controlled by your ideas of what citizenship meant at common law. The Convention notes make clear that Vattel was among authors and influences who were continually discussed. Since the phrase used is not one from common law but is found in Vattel's "Law of Nations" it is more likely that John Marshall was correct and your surmises are what they are, unsupported speculation. Your entire argument is that 14th amendment concepts of citizenship as you divine them from the common law embrace the phrase actually chosen. It is not in my humble opinion, a valid argument. By the way Fuller's opinion, like many dissents, is highly regarded. Your surmises don't really have any support except in your own mind.

[EnderWiggins]

"You thus admit that Blackstone did not use the specific phrase at issue, which is "natural born citizen." A natural born "subject" of the king in England is not the same as the phrase actually chosen.:

The US Supreme Court calls BS on that. I quote again from Wong Kim Ark:

"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."

Fullers dissent remains a dissent. It is the argument that lost 6-2.