That is F*&%$^# immaterial to the point. Apparently you are too ignorant to use synonyms but people of that era were better educated. Here you pop off with this obvious point as if it supports your argument. It doesn't.
He is trying to establish to what degree a citizen of America (natural born or naturalized, it made no difference) who was living and actively participating in the society of England should be respected as an American, and to what degree he should be treated similarly to the Englishmen he was acting like.
You don't get to presumptuously "interpret" Chief Justice Marshall's words for us. We can read for ourselves what he is saying, and what he is saying is that Vattel's definition is the best description of Citizenship of which he is aware. You just don't like what he says, so you are trying to add a Penumbra of crap to them that doesn't exist.
Therefore, Marshall’s quote in The Venus contributes absolutely nothing to the meaning of “natural born citizen” in American law.
Nothing that will get through your think layer of denial anyway. It doesn't get much plainer than what Chief Justice Marshall says. This just demonstrates how powerful is your self delusion.
It's been claimed that Justice Washington also supports the "both/and" theory. He doesn't.
Says "Jeff the might and powerful!" Bullsh*t! Washington also cites Vattel, and points out that alien residents exist as an inferior form of citizenry.
Consistent with others such as Marshall who have quoted Vattel as an authority on international relations and international law - but not on domestic citizenship
Listen to yourself! You seem to be completely unaware that "citizenship" is exclusively a matter of International law, not domestic law. It is only by the fact of other nations existence that there is even the concept of "citizenship."
On the contrary, Marshall supports the well known and completely accepted principle, first articulated by Founder and Framer Alexander Hamilton, that terms in the Constitution ("natural born" is one of these) can be understood in the light of their definitions from English law, since that was where we got our legal terminology:
Yeah, that same English law which said we didn't have a right to secede from England because we owe perpetual allegiance to the Crown. It is mind numbingly stupid that you see using British Subject law as consistent with the American Independence won from England, WHICH WAS AGAINST THIS VERY LAW!!!!!
Truth: The overwhelming rejection of David Ramsay’s ideas on citizenship - 36 to 1 - shows that those ideas did not represent our Founding Fathers and early leaders, and that his citizenship doctrine was flat-out wrong.
No it didn't. Madison's entire argument was based on being a member of a community, not on the fact that he was simply born there. You misconstrue what Madison meant when he used the word "Place." You do the same thing to Madison that you do to Bingham. Ignore the larger argument and take out the sound bites that you prefer.
Again, I've done no such thing. You're the one who has distorted Bingham's position.
First of all, Bingham's words carry no legal weight whatsoever, since he was simply a Congressman speaking on the floor of the House. Any Congressman can express an opinion.
Okay you littel turd burger. If Bingham's words mean nothing (a Ridiculous argument itself) then why did you not only quote them, but intentionally cut out the parts where he explains IN DETAIL what he meant? No weight huh? You sure quoted him a h*ll of a lot when you thought he supported your argument. Now that we have demonstrated him to be completely against you're argument, you want to discount him? No dice chump.
Now as for your first Idiotically stupid assertion, (That Bingham's Words hold no meaning) Here is what Justice Black had to say about the 14th amendment in Duncan v Louisiana.
my legislative experience has convinced me that it is far wiser to rely on what was said, and, most importantly, said by the men who actually sponsored the Amendment in the Congress. I know from my years in the United States Senate that it is to men like Congressman Bingham, who steered the Amendment through the House, and Senator Howard, who introduced it in the Senate, that members of Congress look when they seek the real meaning of what is being offered. And they vote for or against a bill based on what the sponsors of that bill and those who oppose it tell them it means.
I'm not going to address the rest of your attempt at sophistry. You've been hammered dead to rights.
Hahahahaha. And "citizen," except for the lack of allegiance to a king isn't a virtual synonym with "subject?" And "natural born" when applied to "citizen" means something completely different from "natural born" when applied to "subject?"
You really are too funny. In one sense. Although I do agree with Kansas58 that in most senses, you're not funny at all.
You don't get to presumptuously "interpret" Chief Justice Marshall's words for us. We can read for ourselves what he is saying, and what he is saying is that Vattel's definition is the best description of Citizenship of which he is aware.
No. Marshall quite obviously isn't making a point regarding citizenship at all.
Again, he doesn't even mention "natural born citizen" or "natural born citizenship" at all!
What a pantload.
Says "Jeff the might and powerful!" Bullsh*t! Washington also cites Vattel, and points out that alien residents exist as an inferior form of citizenry.
So wait. Now you're telling me that alien residents are a kind of citizen? Doesn't this screw with your silly theory just a tiny little bit?
You seem to be completely unaware that "citizenship" is exclusively a matter of International law, not domestic law. It is only by the fact of other nations existence that there is even the concept of "citizenship."
Really? So the United States does and should bow to international law to define for us who our citizens are and are not?
Really?
Personally, I believe that WE define who our citizens are.
But hey, sounds like you'd rather hand it over to the UN. At least, that's what what you just said implies.
Yeah, that same English law which said we didn't have a right to secede from England because we owe perpetual allegiance to the Crown.
Wow. So because English law said we had no right to secede, that means we threw away every other precedent of law that we had had for centuries.
No it didn't. Madison's entire argument was based on being a member of a community, not on the fact that he was simply born there. You misconstrue what Madison meant when he used the word "Place." You do the same thing to Madison that you do to Bingham. Ignore the larger argument and take out the sound bites that you prefer.
No, I haven't done that to either. In fact, it was the larger argument that caused me to understand that Bingham WASN'T saying what you claimed.
I in fact started out thinking that Bingham actually implied the same thing you claim. It was only by really reading that I found out that particular claim, like virtually every other claim you've made, is complete BS.
Okay you littel turd burger.
Is that part of your official argument?