Wrong.There's that darn "S" again! LMAO!
FACT: In the SCOTUS decision, The Venus, 1814, Justice Marshall defines 'natural-born citizen' using Vattel's work, but in his own words saying,(#123)'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 language that you cited in Venus 12 U.S. 253 (1814) was not part of majority opinion by Justice Washington but rather it was the concurring and dissenting opinion by Chief Justice Marshall in which Justice Livingston concurred. As such, the opinion of Chief Justice Marshall regarding Vattel was NOT THE OPINION OF THE COURT but rather his own opinion. Under the doctrine of stare decisis, an opinion by the majority is considered mandatory authority that is binding on lower courts; however, opinions expressed as concurring opinions are not mandatory but may be considered persuasive authority but they are by no means binding on lower courts.
In this case, Chief Marshall's concurring opinion is not mandatory authority since it was not the majority opinion but at best it was persuasive authority.
One of the best indicators that a concurring opinion was considered persuasive authority by later courts would be for these later courts to cite Chief Justice's concurring opinion. However, a search failed to show that any subsequent federal cases citing Chief Justice's concurring opinion.
As such, Chief Justice's concurring opinion has never been cited by later court cases and the only conclusion to be drawn is that Chief Justice's reliance on Vattel's definition of natives who are born in the country requiring two parents who are citizens has never been used as persuasive authority by later cases.
As a side note, Justice Story concurred with the majority but failed to concur with Justice Marshall
If Vattel were the source of our citizenship laws as you indicated then why didn't the drafters who according to you who were cognizant of the Vattel's "Law of Nations" just draft the following language of a person's eligibility to be president:
“No Person except a NATIVE born citizen,.....”
Why would the drafters insert natural born citizen instead of NATIVE born citizen since according to Vattel, NATIVE are those born in the country whose parents were citizens?
Unless, the drafters used the language borrowed from Blackstone concept of natural born subject by simply substituting the word citizen for subject.