That's what I want to know, who is the King? What master are we subject to? Subject is analogous to citizen according to Tucker's Blackstone & since Tucker was part of the ratifying of the constitution, I think Kent misspoke. In fact, I know he misspoke as many, including the brilliant international writers on law from England refuted Kent and his misinterpretation that subject was equivalent to a free citizen. Also, Kent was NEVER a Supreme Court Justice. He may have been chief justice at the state level, but if you read his works, other than his commentaries, he never really let go of his loyalty to England in his heart. Not once in any of his commentaries does Kent truly define citizen and that is where his works fall short. But on the other hand, he does refute England's laws if inheritance which are based on feudal doctrine. The laws of domicil & inheritance are the foundation of all civilization where citizenship laws are concerned. Those feudal laws were rejected by the founders according to Kent & thus citizenship laws must be defined accordingly. Thus US citizenship laws rejected feudal doctrine.
“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.
State v. Manuel, 4 Dev. & Bat. 20, 24-26 (1838) cited in WKA