Ah, we ARE full of "nuance". Or perhaps something even more brown and sticky.
Nice strawman argument there. I never called him that.
Tantamount. 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, Irrelevant because it's not a holding, or irrelevant because it doesn't touch on his point? Either way, we gather that it is "irrelevant" as far as you are concerned.
So I ask: what was his "point" (the person's citizenship wasn't in dispute, nor was there any discussion of his parents) and how did the paragraph speaking of "indigenes" support his point?
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.
Chain of logic; do you speak it?
So far, I've only cited to The Venus, Minor and Wong Kim Ark.
You have proffered the conclusion that a Judge's opinion is inconsequential unless it is part of a holding; a notion that suggests some sort of magical "Ex Cathedra" transformation of a Judge's pronouncements, in contradiction to the contrary suggestion that Judges generally know what they are talking about, even when not issuing a holding.
That it is not part of a holding is irrelevant. It is still the Judge's opinion of what is the law.
Here I'm not projecting. I'm just observing and documenting what I see.
And like a projectionist has control of the projection, you are seeing what you wish to see.
Let me see if I grasp your methodology here. Are you making an "appeal to authority?" Because what I observe is you rest on that argumentative crutch whenever anyone else lists the considerable number of judges and legal commentators supporting the view you oppose. So when citation to authority is (or is not) an improper "appeal to authority" is a bit hard to figure out with you. Consistency is not your strong suit.
Or logic yours. 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.
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.
"In 1788, Marshall was selected as a delegate to the Virginia convention responsible for ratifying or rejecting the United States Constitution, which had been proposed by the Philadelphia Convention a year earlier. Together with James Madison and Edmund Randolph, Marshall led the fight for ratification. "
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.
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.