We've been over this many times. Honestly, countless times. We certainly have. Since you keep lying, we apparently have to cover it quite a lot.
And by so doing, YOU are engaging in deceit. Not me.
Of course Jeff's rebuttal is the child's argument "You Do it too!" (Tu Quoque.)
The case was not even really about citizenship, let alone "natural born" citizenship, or Presidential eligibility.
And Bayard's book was? Here he goes again... John Marshall commenting on a book? "Big F***ing Deal!" John Marshall at trial commenting on citizenship? "Irrelevant!"
.
I repeat the exact quote you just gave:
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. Marshall quoting Vattel's definition of citizenship is NOT quoting Vattel to define citizenship? You really are a deluded crank.
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.
Do go on. I can't think of a better way to make you look like a fool than to get you to keep writing. I'm quoting you again. (And wondering at the same time, just WHO you think you are fooling?)
Because claiming that a passage defines "natural born citizenship" when it clearly and obviously does not, IS deceit.
Let's have a look at that again.
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.
Jeff:"Because claiming that a passage defines "natural born citizenship" when it clearly and obviously does not, IS deceit."
Sure Jeff. Sure. You have just given me a club with which to beat you over the head. You will be seeing your own words coming back to haunt you quite a lot.
Of course Jeff's rebuttal is the child's argument "You Do it too!" (Tu Quoque.)We've been over this before, too.
My reply is NOT "You do it too." My reply is: You are obviously guilty of the thing you accuse me of, and I am obviously not guilty of it.
The case was not even really about citizenship, let alone "natural born" citizenship, or Presidential eligibility.
And Bayard's book was?
That section of his book sure as hell was.
And anyone can see that that is the case.
Here. Here's that section. Only an idiot or a less-than-honest person with a real axe to grind would ever even attempt to claim that that section of Bayard's exposition of our Constitution was about anything other than Presidential eligibility.
Here he goes again... John Marshall commenting on a book? "Big F***ing Deal!" John Marshall at trial commenting on citizenship? "Irrelevant!"
Marshall's quoting of Vattel in The Venus is not irrelevant because it was in a court case. It's irrelevant because it doesn't talk about natural born citizenship or Presidential eligibility. AT ALL.
The quote was not produced for the purpose of talking about natural born citizenship.
The quote was not produced for the purpose of making any point whatsoever about Presidential eligibility.
Marshall's quote of Vattel is an ACCURATE translation, which doesn't use the phrase "natural born citizens."
That phrase was NEVER used in a translation of Vattel until after the Constitution was written.
There is NO HISTORICAL REFERENCE WHATSOEVER to link that passage to the Framers' use of "natural born citizen" in the Constitution.
And the case you refer to made NO REFERENCE AT ALL to either natural born citizenship, or to Presidential eligibility.
All of that is the very DEFINITION of "irrelevant."
Marshall quoting Vattel's definition of citizenship is NOT quoting Vattel to define citizenship? You really are a deluded crank.
No, you're the deluded crank.
As shown by your own quote, Marshall wasn't quoting Vattel for the purpose of defining citizenship. He wasn't placing any particular mark of approval on Vattel's ideas about domestic citizenship.
He was trying to see what Vattel, as a writer on INTERNATIONAL LAW (the Law of Nations) had to say about how much we respect the property of one of our own citizens residing permanently in another country as being the property of one of our citizens, and how much we regard that person as being a participant in that other society with which we were at war.
That's it.
There's no relevance to the definition of citizenship here. That's not what Marshall was ever talking about.
And again, even if Marshall WERE defining domestic citizenship (which he isn't), THE WORDS "NATURAL BORN" NEVER EVEN APPEAR.
So there is no "definition" of "natural born citizenship" here at all.
And you don't have to be a genius to see that. You only have to be able to rad.
Sure Jeff. Sure. You have just given me a club with which to beat you over the head. You will be seeing your own words coming back to haunt you quite a lot.
That's fine by me. Because the more you go on about this, the stupider you look.