Replies

Thanks Syc... finally you have provided us with a larger excerpt of the ruling that allows to see precisely how misleading you have been every previous time you've referenced the Venus case. Now let us take it one step further.

What is "this point" on which the author says de Vattel "is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands?

It is absolutely not citizenship in any form, natural born or otherwise. What is it then?

Unlike Syc who lies and places a bracket saying it is "citizenship," Chief Justice Marshall tells us in pla;n English:

It is "domicile." The very issue of the case itself. In fact, he explains it just one sentence prior to the quote Syc usual begins with:

"It is therefore of some importance to inquire how far the writers on that law consider the subjects of one power residing within the territory of another, as retaining their original character or partaking of the character of the nation in which they reside."

The issue is not citizenship at all... it is "domicile." And what is the Justice's conclusion based on what de Vattel has to say on that issue?

"A domicile, then, in the sense in which this term is used by Vattel, requires not only actual residence in a foreign country, but “an intention of always staying there.” Actual residence without this intention amounts to no more than “simple habitation.”

No conclusions regarding citizenship at all. It's not even mentioned because it is not even being considered.

Domicile is the issue at hand in Venus. It never addresses any definition of natural born citizen, and it never refers to de Vattel for any of his opinions on citizenship. It is purely and only domicile that is the issue before this court.

But Syc apparently can't understand what he reads.