What you call vague, I call honest.
I was not there. I have not come across anything to the contrary. I cannot say for certain. I could be lying if I say yes, but conversely, I could be lying if I said no.
Would the phrase I don't know suit better?
I can verify Vattel, in the hands of the Founders at the time and place of the creation of our country. If you need more 'evidence' than that, I can't help you.
-----
When they think they can draw a direct line between his words and those of the Constitution or the Founders, they're adamant about the connection; but when other words of Vattel are in direct opposition or contrast to the principles of our nation, suddenly it's time for hedging.
Complaints are not evidence.
-----
If you want to say they picked and chose what they wanted, that's fine, but then, unless there's an explicit statement of the connection, you can't claim any particular thing reflects Vattel.
And you cannot say for certain that the Founders did not use Vattel for the entire Constitution, now can you?
Obviously Vattel was used for something, or Franklin would not have said when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations.
-----
The English law establishing that natural-born subjects could inherit through their alien parents reads
I've shown how the law is here, so I really no reason to go backwards in legal concepts.
I will do so if you wish, however you will need to provide me with a linked source for the material.
-----
Are you seriously going to tell me those are all references to Vattel's book?
Wilson said -"in free States such as ours". Vattel also used the term "free States". I also gave a quote to support the popularity of Vattel at the time.
Again, do have any evidence to the contrary?
------
Or is this another case when they're references to Vattel when it suits your purpose and somehow not when it doesn't?
Pardon? I don't understand the repeated accusations of hedging, or the comment of using something when it suits me an failing to do so if it doesn't. I think I've been consistent in my position.
Would you please show me where I have acted in such a manner? I certainly don't recall it.
I'm sorry, I think I'm allowing some frustration to affect my tone.
Here's the way it appears to me: when I say the law of nations has to do with the relations between states, not internal politics, you counter with a quote from Tucker about the 10th Amendment that references Vattel. Then when I ask if you believe the 10th was based on Vattel (as opposed to Tucker just using it as a point of comparison), you say "I don't know."
When I ask you for an example of how the distinction between "natural" NBSes and "proclaimed" NBSes played out in practice, you bring up the inheritance issue. When I show that the inheritance issue was resolved in favor of the two types being treated the same way, long before Constitutional deliberations started--and that the resolution was called a "remedy"--you say "I really no reason to go backwards in legal concepts."
When I say that Vattel's book wasn't a rule book for nations and we didn't have to adopt his view of citizenship, you counter with a quote from Wilson that says "the law of nations is the law of the people." When I say he's not talking about Vattel's book, you ask me for evidence that he's not; and when I offer other examples of his use of the phrase that obviously don't refer to the book, you ignore them and bring up a different phrase altogether and ask again for evidence that he's not.
I've ended up with the impression that you run from one point to the next without bothering to stitch them together into a consistent, coherent argument. When a particular point gets uncomfortable, you just drop it. It's difficult to pin you down. I'm not sure I have the energy to continue with what seems like a fruitless game. If you're going to cite something and then, when asked if you think it really means what you implied, just say "I don't know," then I don't think there's any point to continuing.