Feudalism doesn't exist in the United States. There is no King and there are no obedient King Subjects, and there is no empire for a King to rule over.
As Kent continued to write, “Subject and citizen are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives, and though the term citizen seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, subjects, for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.”
That's what I want to know, who is the King? What master are we subject to? Subject is analogous to citizen according to Tucker's Blackstone & since Tucker was part of the ratifying of the constitution, I think Kent misspoke. In fact, I know he misspoke as many, including the brilliant international writers on law from England refuted Kent and his misinterpretation that subject was equivalent to a free citizen. Also, Kent was NEVER a Supreme Court Justice. He may have been chief justice at the state level, but if you read his works, other than his commentaries, he never really let go of his loyalty to England in his heart. Not once in any of his commentaries does Kent truly define citizen and that is where his works fall short. But on the other hand, he does refute England's laws if inheritance which are based on feudal doctrine. The laws of domicil & inheritance are the foundation of all civilization where citizenship laws are concerned. Those feudal laws were rejected by the founders according to Kent & thus citizenship laws must be defined accordingly. Thus US citizenship laws rejected feudal doctrine.