Ah, we ARE full of "nuance". Answers that you haven't thought about are easy to supply.
First you alleged that a Judge's opinion outside of a holding is irrelevant, then you suggest that an explicit quote by a judge didn't deal with the issue in question anyway. Well which is it,
Those are same thing. Matters discussed that are not directly pertinent to the question presented in the case are, by definition, not part of the "holding" (ratio decidendi) of the case.
It is the foundation of his point. How does a foundation not support that which is built upon it? Understanding the base of citizenship is necessary before the logic of a citizen's obligations and privileges can be made clear.
There is no attempt to connect this "answer" to any part of Marshall's opinion. You're just flying in the vaccum of your own cranial space here.
You have proffered the conclusion that a Judge's opinion is inconsequential unless it is part of a holding;
As far as the analytical/precedential value of a case, that is exactly how holdings are understood outside of Wonderland.
in contradiction to the contrary suggestion that Judges generally know what they are talking about, even when not issuing a holding.
These "other" portions are given respect (and often in SCOTUS cases, considerable respect unless and until there is a case more directly on point). It's just that people outside of Wonderland know not to base their argument too heavily on these pieces of dicta.
That it is not part of a holding is irrelevant. It is still the Judge's opinion of what is the law.
And C.J. Marshall NEVER says that paragraph from Vattel was adopted or supplies the meaning of the Article II "natural born citizen." You've got a major logical leap and absence of proof to get from Point A to Point B there. You just assume way the problem. Here's your broken-chain-of-logic:
a. In a case presenting (by his own words) an issue of domicile in an international law matter, C.J. Marshall quotes several paragraphs from Vattel, using the translation that speaks of "indigenes" (not "natural born citizen"). b. Marshall had direct connections with several of the Constitutional framers.
c. Even though The Venus case did not speak at all about the U.S. Constitution, it should be accepted that this represents Marshall's view that "natural born citizen" in Article II has the meaning given to "indigenes" in that translation.
Holy leap of logic, Batman!! That you tout yourself as the paragon of logical thinking is gut-bustingly amusing.
And like a projectionist has control of the projection, you are seeing what you wish to see.
That looking glass reflects well, doesn't it?
The fallacy is one of FALSE AUTHORITY. Justice Marshall is not a false authority. As a front seat witness to the events, he is, in fact, an ACTUAL authority.
Of course, he doesn't actually say that what he quotes in the least relates to Article II. There is no mention of the Constitution all all in the case, majority or dissent. But your Actual Authority subscription must come with a bonus "fill in the gaps in proof" voucher. Wonderland is quite a place.
When the topic is what was the meaning and intent of the Delegates in creating Article II, Justice Marshall was in a position to know. Justice Gray was not.
Again, C.J. Marshall merely quotes Vattel on an international law question. He makes no attempt to connect Vattel with Article II. Vattel himself states England followed a different rule on citizenship, and no doubt Marshall new that Framers like Alexander Hamilton said "look to England for the lingusitic backdrop to our Constitutional terms." (See my prior post on this point.).
So, yes, C.J. Marshall is an authority. We disagee on what point he supports.
Now that I have schooled you on the difference between false authority and ACTUAL authority, perhaps you will remember it in the future, though I suspect not.
Gosh, a session in Mr. Engineer's School of Legal Authority and Interpretation! Do I get a certificate? I assure you, I shall accord it its true value and make proper use. "Number 2" comes to mind.
Those are same thing. Matters discussed that are not directly pertinent to the question presented in the case are, by definition, not part of the "holding" (ratio decidendi) of the case. Which has no relevance to whether they are correct or not, despite your strenuous effort to imply that it does. Judges do not become morons in dicta.
As far as the analytical/precedential value of a case, that is exactly how holdings are understood outside of Wonderland.
I've rather come to regard a system which produces Plessy, Wickard, Roe, Larrance, Kelo, and Obamacare as to be rather INSIDE the limits of wonderland.
And C.J. Marshall NEVER says that paragraph from Vattel was adopted or supplies the meaning of the Article II "natural born citizen."
Yes, the words "is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands" cannot possibly mean that he regard Vattel as the applicable standard. Give me a F***ing break. Save your bullshit for someone more gullible.
a. In a case presenting (by his own words) an issue of domicile in an international law matter, C.J. Marshall quotes several paragraphs from Vattel, using the translation that speaks of "indigenes" (not "natural born citizen").
And here's where I think you are a fogblow loon which has wandered onto the reservation. This is, and has always been one of the silliest arguments of which that group of Obama fellators has ever conceived. It simply wreaks of desperation because it requires ignorance regarding the concept of synonyms.
We only need turn to Justice Waite in "Minor v Happersett" to see that he explicitly equates the word "native" with "natural born citizen." (I notice you chose not to use the OTHER word Marshall quotes from Vattel.)
Justice Waite, 1875:
At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.
Of course your next response is likely gonna be, "That's dicta, so we should ignore it." Yeah, right.
b. Marshall had direct connections with several of the Constitutional framers.
That, AND he was a DELEGATE (Along with Bushrod Washington who ALSO cites Vattel extensively in The Venus) to Virginia's Ratifying convention. He worked with Madison to secure PASSAGE of the Constitution. He, more than most, OUGHT TO KNOW WHAT THE F*** HE IS TALKING ABOUT.
c. Even though The Venus case did not speak at all about the U.S. Constitution, it should be accepted that this represents Marshall's view that "natural born citizen" in Article II has the meaning given to "indigenes" in that translation.
There you go again, with your dishonest omission of the word "Natives" which we already know is a common synonym for the term "natural born citizen."
"There you go again..."
You also ignore the fact that the very first two words he quotes from Vattel are "The citizens". Yes, it requires a cosmic leap of logic to arrive at the conclusion that the subsequent referral to "natives, or indigenes" has anything at all to do with Citizenship.
You know what I think? I think you are a dishonest f***ing liar, and you have no intention of being honest, and I think it's a waste of time to attempt any sort of civil discourse with you.
Holy leap of logic, Batman!! That you tout yourself as the paragon of logical thinking is gut-bustingly amusing.
Even your mockery doesn't rise to the level of clever. You didn't prove your point, despite your deliberate omissions, and therefore your goal post dance is just silly.
You seem to be just another hack that wants to believe he's clever, and hasn't the intellectual tools to realize how incompetent he is, but draws false courage from the fact that he's on the same side as most of the bovine herd.
Not going to bother with the rest.