Talk about a hypocrite, who's the one ignoring his own quotes now? what happened to that 1st part of the cite from WKA that you boasted of:
“the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government.”
Those words have meaning:
“The term “citizen,” (natural/original common law) as understood in our law, is precisely analogous (Similar in function but not in structure(meaning) and evolutionary origin) (jus commune/natural/original common law v. jura corona, or lex prerogativa/feudal/statutory law) to the term “subject” (jura corona, or lex prerogativa/feudal/statutory law) in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government.”
The change of government meant brought about a change in meaning. Analogous, although similar in function brought an entirely new meaning to the phrase. The feudal doctrine was ushered out & natural law under the laws of nations was ushered in by the change of phrase. Contemporary dictionaries claim that a computer brain is analogous to a human brain so shal we make citizens of all comperters now too? That is the kind of ignorance you show as well as progressives who think plants & animals have a right to sue us in a court of law.
Just how much alcohol have you had to drink today? It's affecting you already feeble mind and it isn't a pretty sight.
“Analogous, although similar in function brought an entirely new meaning to the phrase. The feudal doctrine was ushered out & natural law under the laws of nations was ushered in by the change of phrase.”
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What blows your argument out of the water is that the court used NBS to determine the meaning of NBC. They rejected citizenship by descent and relied totally on birth location.
“It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”
And much later, “Here is nothing to countenance the theory that a general rule of citizenship by blood or descent has displaced in this country the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within its sovereignty.”
So no, they were not following Vattel. They WERE following English common law.
And if you cannot understand that, then you’ll just have to go on losing. Every time.
Why are you using a definition for "analogous" that comes from a medical dictionary? That's a precise, limited meaning of the term, and there's no indication that "structure" means "meaning" as you imply--things like wings and organs, which is what the definition applies to, don't have meaning, though they do have structure.
It's probably more accurate to use the defintion from the field of logic, which would turn the quote into
The term “citizen,” as understood in our law, is precisely analogous (Similar in one particular aspect that can be inferred from their similarity in other aspects) to the term “subject” in the common law...
That would lead one to conclude that since "citizen" and "subject" are precisely similar ("like each other but not identical") in several respects, they must be like each other in the respect under consideration, which is citizenship. And a reasonable conclusion from that would be that whatever "natural born subject" meant, "natural born citizen" must mean also.