With declining frequency as time passed. Social inertia takes time to dissipate.
Well, DumbDumb, Vattel isn't "English usage." So your looking just at the likes of Shakespeare and Blackstone is a convenient (and flawed) case of selective sampling.
Admitting that the usage of the word is derived from foreign sources is tantamount to admitting the foreign understanding of it also applies. Well done.
How about you look at someone like Montesquieu?
"Democracy." "Republic." "Citizens!"
The only possible salvation for your argument is to connect the word "Citizen" to English Common law. Connecting it to the Roman "Republic" or Greek "Democracy" is arguing for the exact opposite premise.
Both entities required that Citizenship be passed from Parent's to Child.
And how influential was Montesquieu on the Framers of the Constitution. You know, that Constitution that has the word "citizen" in Article II, the one that is under debate here?
Who cares? The Constitution did not create American Citizens. The Declaration of Independence created American citizens. By the time they wrote the constitution, the character of an American citizen was already established, and seemingly you think it is based on "Republic" and "Democracy", which means Roman or Greek legal principles, both of which assert a position contrary to yours.
On Constitutional matters, Montesquieu is termed "the oracle." But surely the writers of the Federalist Papers had glowing things to say about Mssr. Vattel. Oh, wait. Right. They don't mention Vattel at all.
Perhaps you should be looking in the various state conventions on ratification. They mention Vattel and his "Law of Nations" often enough.
I would say a mention in the State Legislatures' deliberations in weighing the Constitution amounts to a more serious consideration than does articles published in newspapers of the period.
While you're at it, look him up in the actual Constitutional convention debates. He's mentioned there too. Also, according to the Supreme Court in 1977:
The international jurist most widely cited in the first 50 years after the Revolution was Emmerich de Vattel.
And this is before we get to the further problem you face that Jefferson was in France when the Constitution was being drafted and debated. So your assumptions get even more attenuated.
And silly bird, you think the Constitution still has something to do with the creation of American citizens. Nope, that was settled 11 years earlier, according to Justice Joseph Story.
If he was born after 15 September, 1776, and his parents did not elect to become members of the State of New York, but adhered to their native allegiance at the time of his birth,then he was born a British subject.
And looky there! He even specifically says that a person can be born in the United States, and yet not be a citizen, and that it depends on his Parent's allegiance.
Perhaps it has not escaped your notice that you are getting shredded?
Hmm, let's see. We're talking about the period roughly 1776 to 1787 here. And I recall the situation in France being discussed in that case you've never read: U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark.
I have no interest in discussing the understanding of words written in 1776 as filtered through the opinions of Liberal Judges from 1898. And with that, I will forgo reading the rest of your wall of text. When I saw it, I almost tossed the whole thing anyways.
Well, duh, it's not like Americans invented the concept of citizen. But where you miss the mark here (again) is your facile presumption that Vattel, and Vattel alone, constituted "the foreign understanding." He didn't. The French had an understanding of "citoyen" at this time that held to a jus soli view. And persons like Franklin and Jefferson and others well-acquainted with the French would have understood this. That was in the part of my prior post you choose to skip past. And so it's a part I'm will endeavor to keep throwing in your face.
The only possible salvation for your argument is to connect the word "Citizen" to English Common law.
Since the parallel between "natural born subject" and "natural born citizen" was amply made both before and after the framing of the Constitution, salvation has arrived. (Hallelujah!)
Connecting it to the Roman "Republic" or Greek "Democracy" is arguing for the exact opposite premise.
Strawman argument. It's sufficient to connect it to then-existing notions of citizenship, e.g., France (you know, that country that helped us triumph in the Revolution). France at this time was jus soli.
Who cares? The Constitution did not create American Citizens.
How quickly (though consistently) you lose sight of the issue.
The Constitution is the document that uses the term "natural born citizen," which is the concept under discussion. What that term meant in 1787 is the issue. All of the stuff about who influenced Jefferson, etc., is just prologue towards understanding what NBC signified in 1787. And given that Montesquieu (#1 on the Donald Lutz study of most-cited political writers) wrote of "citoyens" (and, again, France at this time was jus soli) and given that Blackstone (#2 on the list) also espoused a jus soli view of the common law, yours is a pretty p*ss-poor argument that tries elevate Vattel (#29 on the list) and claim because Vattel (an international law writer, and citizenship is a topic of municipal law) speaks in one section of a jus sanguinis rule that such is the meaning in the Constitution.
Salvation hasn't come to you yet on this point. Nor will it.
Perhaps you should be looking in the various state conventions on ratification. They mention Vattel and his "Law of Nations" often enough.
And I'll wager they mention Montesquieu and Blackstone even more. So what's your point?
While you're at it, look him up in the actual Constitutional convention debates. He's mentioned there too.
Ditto the point above.
What you don't have in either the Convention or Ratifying debates is anyone citing to Vattel on citizenship. All you have is one great hand-wave that because you see Vattel cited on other points that he was the influence on Article II NBC.
Also, according to the Supreme Court in 1977:
"The international jurist most widely cited in the first 50 years after the Revolution was Emmerich de Vattel."
Why are you citing to the "modern court?" According to you, the Wong Kim Ark court in 1898 was "modern." You are nothing if not inconsistent.
Until you are foolishly consistent: you hauled out this quote back in 2013 when I first listed the Lutz study results, showing Vattel down around #29 on the list. Same reply as then and since: "Yes, Vattel, was cited on matters of international law, but citizenship is a matter of municipal law. So go pound sand." (I've by now given you at least 3 sources to substantiate this distinction; yet you remain clueless).
And silly bird, you think the Constitution still has something to do with the creation of American citizens. Nope, that was settled 11 years earlier, according to Justice Joseph Story.
I'd act aghast that you cannot possibly be this dishonest (or this stupid) as to hold up Joseph Story on this point, but you've got a long track record of pulling these stunts.
Right. This question was settled 11 years before, and Story lays out the rule with absolute clarity. If only you weren't such a dishonest slob by omitting the portions preceding the sentence you quoted, this would be clear:
That the father and mother of the demandant were British born subjects is admitted. If he was born before 4 July, 1776, it is as clear that he was born a British subject. If he was born after 4 July, 1776, and before 15 September, 1776, he was born an American citizen, whether his parents were at the time of his birth British subjects or American citizens. Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children even of aliens born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto are subjects by birth.
(Did you notice how Justice Story connects "citizen" with English common law? Hallelujah! :) )
Story lays out the same rule enunciated by Z. Swift 8 years after the Constitution was drafted. And the same rule enunciated by St. George Tucker a few years later. And by Chancellor Kent. Oh, and, yes, after Kent comes Wm. Rawle. Plus, Chancellor Sandford (Lynch v. Clarke). Plus, the 39th Congress (which affirmed the "existing law"). Plus, the SCOTUS.
You're dishonest because you truncate quotes to make the writer appear to support you when he doesn't. (You did the same with James F. Wilson, House Jud. Chairman in the 39th Congress).
You're an idiot, because I corrected you (and MamaTexan) back in February when you were having your little go-round about how it was nice to have someone as illustrious as Joseph Story in your camp. You don't learn.
(Now, explain to me how it is I'm being shredded? :) )