In order to be "born a citizen" in a foreign country, one must claim citizenship through one's parents, and Specifically the father. Bayard states that place of birth is irrelevant to the issue, because foreign birth is a defacto EXCLUSION of native birth. The only legal principle which recognizes citizenship through birth in a foreign land is Jus Sanguinus, yet for some reason, you continue to cite BAYARD as an "authority" on your side. But you are dishonest, and a fool, and we should expect nothing better of you.
.
.
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.
John Marshall:
"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."
Sure Jeff, Sure.
.
.
Jeff:He wasn't placing any particular mark of approval on Vattel's ideas about domestic citizenship.
John Marshall:
"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:As shown by your own quote, Marshall wasn't quoting Vattel for the purpose of defining citizenship.
.
.
Once again, the best thing I can do to convince people you are a fool is to just let you keep talking.