For just the LATEST example, see previous message. DECEIT is your middle name. You ARE a LIAR.
We've been over this many times. Honestly, countless times.
You can't quote a quote that was produced to make a point on international law about how to treat an acknowledged US citizen who is currently living in a country we are at war with, and claim that Marshall was defining "natural born citizen." He wasn't. That's crystal clear.
And by so doing, YOU are engaging in deceit. Not me.
And it's clear to anyone who reads the case and sees what it's about.
The case was not even really about citizenship, let alone "natural born" citizenship, or Presidential eligibility.
AT ALL.
The case does not mention "natural born citizen" or "natural born citizenship" even time. And the only time it mentions "The President," it's referring to the name of a captured ship.
The case has nothing at all to do with natural born citizenship or Presidential eligibility. You're a liar to say that it does. And you're a double liar to accuse me of "deceit."
Here's a link to the case. Anyone can read it for himself and see that what I'm saying is true.
Hell, anyone needs only to take the VERY QUOTE THAT YOU JUST PROVIDED in order to see that the deceit is all on YOUR part.
I repeat the exact quote you just gave:
"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.
Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says
"The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights."
So right there it says Marshall isn't quoting Vattel to define citizenship, or NATURAL BORN citizenship. He's quoting Vattel to see what the writers on INTERNATIONAL LAW have to say about HOW TO TREAT AN AMERICAN CITIZEN WHO IS PERMANENTLY RESIDING IN ENGLAND.
And in fact, he admits that the quote isn't spot on for that subject, but it was the best quote from the writers of the law of nations he was able to come up with.
ON HIS SUBJECT, WHICH IS NOT THE DEFINITION OF NATURAL BORN CITIZENSHIP.
So anybody who can read can see that you're full of sh*t, and anyone who can read can see that you're the only one here engaging in the deceit that you accuse others of engaging in.
Because claiming that a passage defines "natural born citizenship" when it clearly and obviously does not, IS deceit.