Of course not. I've had to correct you about that case in the past. You just keep repeating the same mistakes. I still suspect at 55 or so pages, the opinion is beyond your capacity to read.
and is in any case, inconsistent with the intentions of the legislature as stated by the Chief Author of the 14th amendment John Bingham.
The citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, like its counterpart in the Civil Rights Act, was stated multiple times in the debates to be a declaration of existing law. And statements by multiple legislators indicate that "existing law" reflected the jus soli view. Cong. Lawrence of Ohio, speaking on the CRA citizenship clause, states this clearly:
“This clause is unnecessary, but nevertheless proper, since it is only declaratory of what is the law without it. This has been sufficiently demonstrated by the by the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee (Mr. Wilson's speech, March 1) and by the authorities he has cited. (1 Sharwood's Blackstone, 844; Naturalization Act of April 14, 1802; Act of February 28, 1838; Brightley's Digest, 187; Section 10 of Act of September 4, 1841; Opinions of Attorneys General, vol. 4.. 1 Bouvier's Law Dictionary, title Denizen; 2 Kent. Comm., 278, note; . . Rawle on Constitution, 80; State ex Manuel, 3[.]
In the great case of Lynch vs. Clarke, it was conclusively shown that in the absence of all constitutional provision or congressional law declaring citizenship by birth, “it must be regulated by some rule of national law coeval with the existence of the Union” it was and is that “all citizens that children born here, are citizens, without any regard to the political condition or allegiance of their parents.” (1 Sandford's Ch. R., 483)
This was the common law of England, and this statute (25 Edward II, St. 2 [] ) was declaratory of th eold common law." Rep. Lawrence, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 1832 (1866)
Do you notice the authorities listed? The Naturalization Act of 1802 (you know, the one St. George Tucker listed as "accordant" with Blackstone), James Kent, William Rawle, and, oh, the "great case of Lynch v. Clarke."
So these very authorities I've been citing, the ones you poo-pooh as the opinion of "later day lawyers" are the very authorities put forth in the 69th Congress as sources for "existing law."
So Justice Gray was spot-on when he construed both the CRA and 14th Amendment as embodying a jus soli principle. Yes, he could have made his already long opinion even longer by pulling in a good amount of legislative history consistent with what I just cited, but to what end? It's really just "piling on" at that point.
Was Bingham saying anything different? No, not when read in context of the larger discussions.
And all of them are little teeny tiny dwarves compared to Madison, Franklin, Wilson, Washington, Jay, Adams, Marshall, etc.
None of whom support your position other than in your mind. Had any of these persons in the least supported a Vattel-oriented view of Article II, Chief Justice Fuller would have seized upon that in his dissent in WKA. But Fuller knew well enough that in making a structured argument, a person can't just pull out stuff that seems "close enough," do a hand wave, and then claim the point been supported. A person who does that isn't to be taken seriously.
You could stand to learn a bit from the Chief Justice. It's why your argument isn't taken seriously. Not even by the Powers that Be at this site.
Your attempt to paint him as bigger than Marshall is even more hilarity.
Hardly. As far as influence on the law both have enormous stature. Legal scholars would have a good time debating who had the greater influence. Given I doubt you've read any of their opinions completely, you are ill-equipped to give informed opinion.