OK Mr. Vattel counts-for-nothing-in SCOTUS-jurisprudence, this from JUSTICE JOHN MARSHALL is lifted from page 12 of the Venus Merchantman case as they were defining the various classes of citizens:
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.”
“The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside there, and they are obliged to defend it because it grants
Page 12 U. S. 290
them protection, though they do not participate in all the rights of citizens. They enjoy only the advantages which the laws or custom gives them. The perpetual inhabitants are those who have received the right of perpetual residence. These are a kind of citizens of an inferior order, and are united and subject to the society, without participating in all its advantages.”
Put that in your pipe of oblivion and smoke it. This is known has dicta. I know the case had nothing to do with Article II directly. But they do cite Vattel as a source for what an NBC is.
Continue to maintain your fiction that Vattel is not referenced in dozens of federal court cases. I will bet you any amount you care to name that you are WRONG.
“this from JUSTICE JOHN MARSHALL is lifted from page 12 of the Venus Merchantman case as they were defining the various classes of citizens:
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”
Oh, dear Gawd, you are hopelessly naïve.
Try reading other court cases on other topics.
There is a STRUCTURE to the court’s opinion.
One section is a SURVEY of ALL the possible sources of authority to reach a decision.
A thorough court opinion summarizes anything on the topic.
Try reading Roe v. Wade which surveys dozens of different commentaries — most of which contradict each other.
Merely being MENTIONED does not mean that the court ACCEPTED what someone said.
Mentioning every source on the topic is being THOROUGH.
However, no one has ever used Vattel in US law for anything other than paper hanging in the outhouse.
Vattel is a book about MONARCHIES.
Vattel says that the same man can be president or prince of many countries at the same time. How does that fit your loyalty theme?
Try READING Vattel before you post again.