Of course you are. Madison acknowledged both jus soli and jus sanguinis, but said that when one was talking about citizenship, jus soli was WHAT APPLIED IN THE UNITED STATES.
In other words, he quite explicitly said that OUR NATION HAD ADOPTED THE BASIC JUS SOLI RULE FOR CITIZENSHIP.
This was an entirely explicit statement on his part. ANd you just brush it off as if it were nothing.
And this is just wrong. Justice Marshall clearly stated the principle in "The Venus", and Justice Waite clearly stated the exact same principle in "Minor v Happersett." You just don't like these cases, so you refuse to acknowledge them.
I've never refused to acknowledge either.
The Venus was clearly about DOMICILE, not citizenship, and certainly not natural born citizenship.
AND DOMICILE IS THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH VATTEL WAS QUOTED IN THAT CASE.
So you take a case in which Marshall produced a passage from Vattel because he found Vattel's opinion ON DOMICILE relevant. And you extrapolate from that, that Marshall must have also found Vattel's supposed opinion on citizenship relevant.
But Marshall himself NEVER QUOTED THE PASSAGE BECAUSE HE AGREED WITH VATTEL ON CITIZENSHIP, OR EVEN FOUND THAT OPINION RELEVANT.
In fact, Justice Marshall was a bit careless in this instance, because he used a badly-translated version of Vattel that silly birthers could pull up nearly 200 years later, to justify a pile of horse manure that Marshall himself almost certainly would have TOLD you was horse manure.
As for Minor v. Happersett, it doesn't matter how many times rational people point out: 1) the 2 or 3 sentences you quote were the very definition of "dicta," 2) they never said children of aliens weren't natural born citizens anyway, they said they didn't know and frankly didn't care, and 3) it would have all been overruled by Wong Kim Ark anyway.
Legally speaking, this is a piece of tissue paper. It is literally difficult to imagine a case with any less substance to it.
And as noted a few days ago by another poster here, AT LEAST ONE JUDGE HAS SPECIFICALLY RULED THAT THE CLAIM IS A PILE OF HORSE****.
Allen v Obama, Arizona Superior Court Judge Richard E. Gordon:
“Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.”—Pima County Superior Court, Tuscon, Arizona, March 7, 2012
So you've even had at least one official judge tell you your pile of horse manure from Minor is horse manure.
That won't stop you, of course. Because you've got a wagon-load of Brown Gold.
Yeee-ha, boys! We got us some BROWN GOLD!!
“And you extrapolate from that, that Marshall must have also found Vattel’s supposed opinion on citizenship relevant.”
Since we are extrapolating how about we extrapolate this:
“The constitution gives to the president, in general terms, “the power to grant reprieves and pardons for offences against the United States.”
“As this power had been exercised from time immemorial by the executive of that nation whose language is our language, and to whose judicial institutions ours bear a close resemblance; we adopt their principles respecting the operation and effect of a pardon, and look into their books for the rules prescribing the manner in which it is to be used by the person who would avail himself of it.” Chief Justice Marshall, in United States v. Wilson 1833
"In General." He also said that South Carolina could have made a law which said something different. In fact, other states DID make such laws. California for example:
241. The citizens of the State are:
(a) All persons born in the State and residing within it, except the children of transient aliens and of alien public ministers and consuls.
(b) All persons born out of the State who are citizens of the United States and residing within the State.
And you've also seen the law from the State of New York.
“The citizens of the state are:1.All persons born in this state and domiciled within it, except the children of transient aliens and of alien public ministers and consuls;
And Connecticut.
“Sec. 1. (1857) All persons born in this State, all persons born without its limits, if children of citizens of this State, who are temporarily absent therefrom, and all other persons being in, or coming into, and locating in this State, with intent to remain and reside permanently as citizens, except aliens, paupers, and fugitives from justice or service, are and shall be deemed to be citizens of this State, owing it allegiance and entitled to receive its protection, until they shall have voluntarily withdrawn from its limits, and become incorporated into some other State or sovereignty as members thereof.” Title II, Chapter 1, Section 1 of The General Statutes of the State of Connecticut, revision of 1875, page 4.
How do you like State Legislatures as a "Legal Authority?"
This was an entirely explicit statement on his part. ANd you just brush it off as if it were nothing.
I don't brush it off as nothing, I acknowledge it as a point mostly on your side of the equation. What Madison said mostly favors your argument, but he also said things which do not. The One Statement by Madison simply doesn't make all the statements by other people go away. I personally think the statement is taken out of context, and that by way of explanation, Madison went on to imply that birth in a certain place was a proxy for meaning birth within a community. Indeed, his entire argument was that Smith was a child of Long Established and Highly esteemed members of the South Carolina community.
I've never refused to acknowledge either.
The Venus was clearly about DOMICILE, not citizenship, and certainly not natural born citizenship.
As that is the salient point as to where the parties loyalties lay, it is the determining factor as to whether or not they possessed American Citizenship. It is irrelevant to the point. On the question of citizenship, Marshall quotes the exact definition by Vattel, and pronounces it to be the best available definition. Washington likewise quotes Vattel. You cannot reasonably suggest that they Specifically quote him, and Specifically say his is the best definition around, and then try to assert that they really didn't believe his definition.
So you take a case in which Marshall produced a passage from Vattel because he found Vattel's opinion ON DOMICILE relevant. And you extrapolate from that, that Marshall must have also found Vattel's supposed opinion on citizenship relevant.
You behave as though you haven't even read Marshall's opinion. He specifically quotes what Vattel had to say about citizenship. It demonstrates conclusively that he knew what it said, and he further said that it is the best definition of which he was aware. You simply cannot spin that into a win for you.
As for Minor v. Happersett, it doesn't matter how many times rational people point out: 1) the 2 or 3 sentences you quote were the very definition of "dicta," 2) they never said children of aliens weren't natural born citizens anyway, they said they didn't know and frankly didn't care, and 3) it would have all been overruled by Wong Kim Ark anyway.
Calling it "Dicta" does not make it go away. Presumably Justice Waite's opinion reflects what Justice Waite believed, regardless of whether it is Dicta or Holding. "Dicta" is not a magic word which means "Oh, they were just joking and unserious", it still reflects the best understanding of the Judge who writes it.
Beyond what Justice Waite says about Children born to parents etc, There is simply no getting around this statement by Justice Waite.
"The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural born citizens."
This statement Obliterates any claim that the 14th amendment definition creates "natural citizens." If it were the Opinion of Justice Waite that the 14th amendment created "natural citizens", he would have said:
The Fourteenth Amendment clearly says who shall be "natural born citizen."
He did not. He explicitly said that no part of the constitution defines "natural born citizen, and in a case replete with references to the 14th amendment.
And as noted a few days ago by another poster here, AT LEAST ONE JUDGE HAS SPECIFICALLY RULED THAT THE CLAIM IS A PILE OF HORSE****.
Allen v Obama, Arizona Superior Court Judge Richard E. Gordon:
I put no stock in contemporary court rulings on this issue. Too many people in the legal system have been corrupted by the widespread misreading of the Wong Kim Ark precedent. They are, like Rawle, contaminated with false doctrine. (And whom I suspect may have triggered the whole body of false understanding.) The Ankeny decision is an example of a particularly incompetent ruling. Such rulings are no different from the Roe court deciding that the 14th amendment legalizes abortion. It's just bad legal reasoning based on a twisted understanding.
Yeee-ha, boys! We got us some BROWN GOLD!!
Everything coming from you has the consistency of brown gold.