Attempts to deflect your earlier historical illiteracy will not be permitted. "John Locke does not declare a natural right to revolution and Independence" and "Indeed, the very ideas of "Revolution" and "Independence" comes from Vattel, and no one else." Those are your statements. And they are flat-out WRONG.
Rousseau was from Geneva. He was also Swiss.
He also lived much of his adult years in France and for periods held French citizenship.
And I noted you omitted addressing this part of my post:
But at the time of the adoption of the Constitution of the United States in 1789, and long before, it would seem to have been the rule in Europe generally, as it certainly was in France, that, as said by Pothier, "citizens, true and native-born citizens, are those who are born within the extent of the dominion of France," and mere birth within the realm gives the rights of a native-born citizen, independently of the origin of the father or mother, and of their domicil; and children born in a foreign country, of a French father who had not established his domicil there nor given up the intention of returning, were also deemed Frenchmen, as Laurent says, by "a favor, a sort of fiction," and Calvo, "by a sort of fiction of exterritoriality, considered as born in France, and therefore invested with French nationality." Pothier Trait des Personnes, pt. 1, tit. 2, sect. 1, nos. 43, 45; Walsh-Serrant v. Walsh-Serrant, (1802) 3 Journal du Palais, 384; S.C., S. Merlin, Jurisprudence, (5th ed.) Domicile, § 13; Prefet du Nord v. Lebeau, (1862) Journal du Palais, 1863, 312 and note; 1 Laurent Droit Civil, no. 321; 2 Calvo Droit International, (5th ed.) § 542; Cockburn on Nationality, 13, 14; Hall's International Law, (4th ed.) § 68. The general principle of citizenship by birth within French territory prevailed until after the French Revolution, and was affirmed in successive constitutions from the one adopted by the Constituent Assembly in 1791 to that of the French Republic in 1799." U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 666 (1898).
The term "citizen" doesn't lead inexorably to Vattel. You can't prelude that Jefferson (who knew of France apart from sampling European writers) didn't simply take "citizen" as a concept reflecting Rousseau or any of a host of other sources.
Your hand-waving on this point is so frantic one might think you imagine your argument will take flight. It won't. Do-do birds can't fly. Your argument was extinct long before 2009 when it suddenly was resurrected.
Had the intention been to apply the English birth-rule, there would have been no need to change terminology.
Was there an absolute need? No. This is a stylistic preference, the term "citizen" simply being more fitting to a republican form of government, though "subject" and "inhabitant" convey that same idea. As Justice Waite (a source you've cited) states "When used in this sense it is understood as conveying the idea of membership of a nation, and nothing more.")
You keep trying to make it mean something more, when it does not -- when clearly the historical record shows many considered "subject" and "citizen" interchangeable.
That is dodging my question. The question was whether Rousseau defined the term.
Oh, mine was not the dodge. The dodge here is your continued inability to demonstrate how Jefferson defined "citizen" as used in the Declaration and how the meaning ascribed can ONLY find its source in Vattel.
Because without that, DumbDumb, you've got nothing. Your entire argument based on "citizen" hinges on that proof. So far, you're failing miserably.
I am confident he regarded it to be the same as did Vattel.
Wave those hands! Keep waving them!!! Simply disregard the possibility that Rousseau understood "citizen" in the French sense (a place where he lived and was highly influential). Because, obviously, to entertain that thought in the least causes your entire argument to crumble.
I only have to show that the origin of Jefferson's usage of the word defines it, and I believe I have done that quite effectively.
You are such a fool. You haven't done that AT ALL! All you've done is wave your hands and declare it to be so.
Jefferson's source for the usage appears to be from writers in the Swiss Confederacy.
So you simply do another hand-wave and assume that everyone born within the Swiss Confederacy held to the same view on citizenship? Did Samuel Roberts and William Rawle espouse the same view because they were each American writers?
Your superficial analysis is so laughable because of how at the same time you pretend to be so smart. But, again, you illustrate your technique of "every assumption must be applied (or not) in the particular instance so as to benefit my argument."
So I ask again (because it's so fun watching you try to avoid this). Is it POSSIBLE that Rousseau understood "citizen" in the sense the French at this time did (which then would align Jefferson's usage both with England and France? Or is it POSSIBLE that Jefferson simply took "citizen" in long-standing sense to describe a member of a republic, independent of any later and particular usage associated with Vattel?
I'm poking holes again and again in your boat. Got a nice bucket? "Avoidance" isn't a patch.
I cited Wilson from websites where he is cited in support of that claim. I admitted that I did not look his words up in the Congressional Globe, but merely relied instead on work that others had done without checking.
Ah, so FINALLY, after a year or more of playing dumb, you admit to the truth: you're lazy and simply pawned off some other lazy or dishonest person.
I will thus from now exempt you from charges of "deliberate dishonesty" on this point and instead modify the indictment to read only "intellectually lazy." And the pattern of your citing to sources that don't back up your claims will continue to be held against you. :)
And if you had set out to diligently sample the entirety of statements from the 39th Congress, rather than again simply rely on some website touting your favorite two quotes from Bingham, we wouldn't (or shouldn't) be having discussion on him any further. As I say, pet arguments are clung to long after the time they should have been euthanized.
You keep bringing it up as if there was a deliberate attempt to deceive, (as if anyone could with a public record) instead of just laziness in checking primary sources.
That's because you never admitted to simply being lazy. So you left the door open for me to keep flogging you in the more severe sense. Before the Wilson example, you already had a history of not understanding your own sources.
Every attorney knows to read a case before citing it and not simply rely on someone else's summary of that case. You lack the training and intellectual rigor to truly understand your sources and your arguments. That's why I habitually eat you for lunch in these discussions.
Once again, I point out to you that Bingham had previously expounded on his specific understanding regarding that general statement.
So Bingham is consistent in using that same phrasing. So what? You have yet to demonstrate that he means that other than to exclude children of foreign diplomats (i.e., the familiar common law exception he'd get from reading Blackstone, Kent, Rawle, Lynch, etc.) or children born to Indians still holding tribal allegiance, i.e., the prevailing understanding among his Congressional colleagues. His later statement ("all persons born within the Republic are natural born citizens") is simply a statement of the common law rule, just without bothering to add "oh, plus we all know there are these exceptions").
F*** you bitch.