You can't counter the reasoning presented in this thread. Marshall simply wasn't saying what you claim he was saying. He was providing no definition of citizenship at all, much less any definition of NATURAL BORN citizenship. The case doesn't even use the words "natural born" one single time.
And yet you insist that Marshall was giving us a definition not only of citizenship, but of natural born citizenship.
That's just idiotic. And anybody can read the case for himself, and if he's not a birther, he can plainly SEE that your point is idiotic.
There has been no reasoning presented in the thread.
There have been sophistic attempts to obfuscate the plain truth, that John Marshall specifically quoted Vattel on Citizenship, and proclaimed it "more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands".
The fact that he did so has you guys helplessly scouring the rest of the case like cockroaches trying to find a crumb in support of your argument.
He was providing no definition of citizenship at all, much less any definition of NATURAL BORN citizenship.
Yes, my own eyes are lying to me.
John Marshall:
"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."
.
The case doesn't even use the words "natural born" one single time.
Let me acquaint you with a basic English concept referred to as a synonym. Most of us learned about them in grade school, but you must have missed all the lessons.
And yet you insist that Marshall was giving us a definition not only of citizenship, but of natural born citizenship.
I can only regard this statement as a feeble attempt at hypnosis, for it is silly on a level to which no conscious person could be susceptible .
That's just idiotic. And anybody can read the case for himself, and if he's not a birther, he can plainly SEE that your point is idiotic.
Yes, as anyone can plainly see, John Marshall is NOT quoting a definition of Citizenship and he is NOT proclaiming it to be "more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands".
John Marshall:
"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."
It boggles the mind that you seem to think these arguments will fool anyone.