Sure looked like it when you quoted a bunch of "law of nations" quotes not capitalized, including the "writers of the law of nations." Glad you have backed off of that.
"he cited a chunk of Vattel and went on to discuss what related to the case - with citizens living in another country. Read the case and see the point of the case."
This is still a strawman.
Suggest you look up what a "strawman argument" is.
This case was only cited to show that Vattel is positively linked to uncapitalized citations of law of nations. This means that law of nations does NOT have to be capitalized to be linked with Vattel. The fact that the SCOTUS relied so much on Vattel for principles of citizenship is a nice bonus. The same definition of natural citizenship Marshall used is recast in Minor, minus a specific citation.
Are you at all aware of how books are usually cited? Book titles are generally capitalized. Note a case from 1883, and another from 1890. When specifically citing Vattel's book, the name of the book is capitalized. Breaking up your long post - see next.
I can't back off something that I never said to begin with. You understand that, right??
Suggest you look up what a "strawman argument" is.
No problem
A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position, twisting his words or by means of [false] assumptions.
You said I was relying on a quote that had nothing to do with the case, but the citation wasn't about the case but about how law of nations has been cited by the court. By continuing to focus on the case, you're continuing to misrepresent my argument. That is a class example of a strawman.
Are you at all aware of how books are usually cited? Book titles are generally capitalized. Note a case from 1883, and another from 1890. When specifically citing Vattel's book, the name of the book is capitalized. Breaking up your long post - see next.
Sorry, but you gave two examples which don't mean a whole lot. I can find examples that still don't captalize the book, but are obviously referencing the book. All you've proven is that Vattel and law of nations gets cited frequently by the court, which in the long run, supports my original point.
Vattel, in his law of nations, which was first printed at Neufchatel in 1758, and was translated into English and published in England in 1760, uses this language:
link
A few extracts from an eminent writer on the laws of nations, showing the manner in which these different words have been used and the different meanings sometimes attached to them, will perhaps contribute to explain the reason for using them all in the Constitution, and will prove that the most comprehensive terms were employed in prohibiting to the states all intercourse with foreign nations. Vattel, page 192, sec. 152, says: "A treaty, in Latin foedus, is a compact made with a view to the public welfare by the superior power, either for perpetuity or for a considerable time."
link
The law of nations recognizes the liberty of every government to give to foreigners only such rights touching immovable property within its territory as it may see fit to concede. Vattel, book 2, c. 8, sec. 114.
link