The whole system of decisions applicable to this subject rests on the law of nations as its base. It is therefore of some importance to inquire how far the writers on that law consider the subjects of one power residing within the territory of another, as retaining their original character or partaking of the character of the nation in which they reside.What? He wasn't looking to define "natural born"? Oh the horror! Could Edge be trying to pull the wool over our eyes by pretending he was? (Yup, no surprise there.) So in a long quote on another issue, Vattel's definition which is not germane to the case is included. Not Justice Marshall's own words, mind, but a quote on another issue.
However, when it's Justice Marshall's own words, he says
“A naturalized citizen is indeed made a citizen under an act of Congress, but the act does not proceed to give, to regulate, or to prescribe his capacities. He becomes a member of the society, possessing all the rights of a native citizen, and standing, in the view of the constitution, on the footing of a native. The constitution does not authorize Congress to enlarge or abridge those rights. The simple power of the national Legislature, is to prescribe a uniform rule of naturalization, and the exercise of this power exhausts it, so far as respects the individual. The constitution then takes him up, and, among other rights, extends to him the capacity of suing in the Courts of the United States, precisely under the same circumstances under which a native might sue. He is distinguishable in nothing from a native citizen, except so far as the constitution makes the distinction. The law makes none.” [OSBORN V. BANK OF THE UNITED STATES]Not surprising you perfer a quote that addresses a different subject to Justice Marshall's own words which contradict your ideas and undermine your arguments. Marshall's words make it clear he viewed "native" the same as "natural born."
Are you REALLY this dumb in real life?? The part you quoted does NOT change that a) the Law of Nations was used as an authoritative source on NATURAL citizenship, b) the quote comes directly from Vattel and includes criteria that Obama fails to meet, and c) "natives" are defined as those persons born in the country to CITIZEN parents. IOW, once again, you're making my argument FOR me. Thanks.
What? He wasn't looking to define "natural born"?
You replied to what I said in post #655, which was about the term "native" as was bolded in YOUR post, #653:
He is distinguishable in nothing from a native citizen, except so far as the constitution makes the distinction.
Marshall's use of native citizen here = natural-born, and his definition of "native" = Vattel's definition which means to be born in the country to citizen parents.
Marshall's words make it clear he viewed "native" the same as "natural born."
... and defined it as born in the country to citizen parents. You DO understand this, right??? Tell me you're not as stupid as you are pretending to be.