Showing that St. George Tucker quoted Vattel on something completely unrelated to natural born citizenship is a ridiculous attempt to make an argument where absolutely no argument exists.
I and other reasonable interpreters of past history and law have noted, probably on MANY occasions, that Vattel WAS QUOTED by past legal authorities. Ben Franklin wrote that he appreciated 3 copies of Vattel's book, because "the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations."
Do you know what the heck the "law of nations" even MEANS? Today we would call it "INTERNATIONAL LAW."
John Marshall quotes Vattel's thoughts on when a person who is a citizen of ONE country has his domicile in a foreign land, and is effectively participating as if he were a member of the foreign society.
And St. George Tucker quotes Vattel to say that independent nations may band together and form a confederacy.
Big whoop. These are all matters of INTERNATIONAL LAW. It is INTERNATIONAL LAW that Vattel was regarded as having some authority in.
But NONE of the Founders or Framers EVER quoted Vattel in regard to our internal affairs, and CERTAINLY not as an authority on what constituted US citizenship.
More relevantly, St. George Tucker said:
“That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted) is a happy means of security against foreign influence… A very respectable political writer makes the following pertinent remarks upon this subject. “Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it.”
Tucker even explicitly defines for us here who NATURAL BORN CITIZENS are. He says they are those BORN WITHIN THE STATE.
He then defines who aliens are: THOSE BORN OUT OF IT.
And everything you write is like this. You stretch the faintest of possible associations and claim it's "evidence."
And you completely ignore or brush aside the CLEAR WORD of what a natural born citizen was and was not.
That is called TWISTING HISTORY, TWISTING LAW, and (since it is all in regard to the Constitution) TWISTING THE CONSTITUTION.
And YOU are guilty of it.
LOL! How do you go about using what Tucker quotes another person as saying as to how the situation was prior to the existence of the State as being born 'in' a State prior to that State even existing? That's totally nonsensical.
Unless you're into picking cherries.
If you bother reading further down-
This was the legal state of this subject in Virginia, when the federal constitution was adopted; it declares that congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization; throughout the United States; but it also further declares, that the powers not delegated by the constitution to the United States, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states, respectively or to the people.
The federal government has the ability to make a uniform rule for naturalization ONLY
-----
Again, continuing FURTHER DOWN from your quote-
The power of naturalization, and not that of denization, being delegated to congress, and the power of denization not being prohibited to the states by the constitution, that power ought not to be considered as given to congress, but, on the contrary, as being reserved to the states. And as the right of denization did not make a citizen of an alien, but only placed him in a middle state, between the two, giving him local privileges only, .....
So, if the State governments have ONLY the authority to make denizens , and the federal government has ONLY the authority to make a rule for naturalization, WHO has the authority to determine who is or is not natural born?
The answer is........NEITHER!
ALL any governmental entity can do is acknowledge the definition that already exists.
just as Vattel said
The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.
just as the co-author of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment said
"Every Person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=11%20
Just as the definition entered into the Congressional record of the House on March 9, 1866 said:
“[I] find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen. . . . ”
John A. Bingham
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=071/llcg071.db&recNum=332
just as the decision of Wong Kim Ark said:
it was never doubted that all children born in a country, of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
There is only ONE WAY to acquire *natural-born citizenship*.
You must inherent it from your parents.
-----
Have a nice day.