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.
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. And your strawman argument persists. It is recognized that portions of an opinion central to the decision are likely written with greater care than the tangential points. The majority opinion in Wong Kim Ark, for example, discusses this.
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.
But the standard for what? Marshall says Vattel is more explicit on "it" -- meaning the point at issue (domicile in an international law case). He doesn't claim Vattel has the least to say on domestic law matters. The Constititution isn't even in view in The Venus.
It simply wreaks of desperation because it requires ignorance regarding the concept of synonyms.
The larger point -- which you keep ducking -- is that nothing in his opinion suggests that any part of what C.J. Marshall quotes from Vattel supplies the meaning of any Constitutional term. Your quibble about synonyms is a smokescreen.
We only need turn to Justice Waite in "Minor v Happersett" to see that he explicitly equates the word "native" with "natural born citizen."
Is J. Waite also an Actual Authority? He didn't have direct ties to any Framer? Why is he being cited?
Oh, wait! Of course! It's be HE SAYS WORDS THAT YOU THINK SUPPORT YOU!
So in the Engineer's School of Legal Authorities we can see that "Actual Authority" means "Someone who utters words that DL likes," while "False Authority" means "someone who utters words DL doesn't like." It's an easy rule to learn.
Yes, J. Waite uses the term "native." So what? He also says that the case DIDN'T involve the question of a person born to an alien parent(s). When that question was before the Court they indicated that "native" includes persons in the U.S. to alien parents:
Passing by questions once earnestly controverted, but finally put at rest by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, it is beyond doubt that, before the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 or the adoption of the Constitutional [p675] Amendment, all white persons, at least, born within the sovereignty of the United States, whether children of citizens or of foreigners, excepting only children of ambassadors or public ministers of a foreign government, were native-born citizens of the United States.U.S. v Wong Kim Ark (That opinion also cites C.J. Marshall in a case were Marshall was actually
And the Court also uses "native" in place of "natural born" when discussing presidential eligibility. Luria v. U.S."Native born" including BOTH children of citizens and children of aliens, both are thus indicated to be Article II eligible.
So, indeed, this equating of "native" with "natural born" is just one of MANY reasons why all these legal commentators, historians, and judges hold to a conclusion you don't.
Of course your next response is likely gonna be, "That's dicta, so we should ignore it."
Minor was a voting rights case that has been overturned by Constitutional amendment. The case didn't present the question of fhe birth status of someone born of an alien parent(s). Yet somehow you conclude this overturned decision didn't touch on that issue has some lingering import on a case involving chidren of aliens. But, of course, you think an international law case presenting the issue of domicile that didn't touch on the Constitution has relevance to a domestic case involving a Constitutional question.
Your thinking processes are so result-driven and muddled it is no small effort to unpack all the idiocy you stuff into a single post.
But I'll grant you this much. If what you have is the question of whether some born in the U.S. of citizen parents is a "natural born citizen," then Minor affords some analystical/precedential value. But if the question involves the status of someone born of alien parent(s) (e.g., Obama, Rubio, Jindal), Minor is but so much overturned irrelevancy.
b. Marshall had direct connections with several of the Constitutional framers.
Which might be a significant observation in a case where he's addressing a specific constitutional term. But in The Venus he doesn't make one peep about the Constitution, so your observation is just more irrelevancy.
You also ignore the fact that the very first two words he quotes from Vattel are "The citizens".
I don't ignore it. I merely place that in context by observing 1) C.J. Marshall doesn't indicate citizenship was at issue, whereas he does with domicile, 2) he doesn't at all discuss that citizenship passage from Vattel, whereas he does with the later domicile passage; and 3) most significantly, he doesn't in the least indicate there's any connection between what quotes from Vattel and the Constitution. So Marshall furnishes no proof whatsoever that the Article II "natural born citizen" has anything to do with Vattel.
You should stick to engineering; your attempts to discuss law are inept.