Immigration and National Act 1995 by Diane Publishing Company page 285
Posted on 05/12/2010 12:36:53 PM PDT by rxsid
"COLUMBIA LAW REVIEW
VOL. 109 JANUARY 2009 NO. 1
THE FEDERAL COMMON LAW OF NATIONS
Anthony J. Bellia Jr.*
Bradford R. Clark**
...
This Article describes the role that the law of nations actually has played throughout American history. In keeping with the original constitutional design, federal courts for much of that history enforced certain rules respecting other nations’ “perfect rights” (or close analogues) under the law of nations as an incident of political branch recognition of foreign nations, and in order to restrain the judiciary and the states from giving other nations just cause for war against the United States. Rather than viewing enforcement of the law of nations as an Article III power to fashion federal common law, federal courts have instead applied rules derived from the law of nations as a way to implement the political branches’ Article I and Article II powers to recognize foreign nations, conduct foreign relations, and decide momentous questions of war and peace. This allocation of powers approach best explains the most important federal cases involving the law of nations across American history.
* Professor of Law and Notre Dame Presidential Fellow, Notre Dame Law School.
** William Cranch Research Professor of Law, George Washington University Law School.
...
The Supreme Court has treated certain aspects of the law of nations as a set of background rules to guide its implementation of the Constitution’s allocation of powers. Specifically, the Court has respected foreign sovereigns’ “perfect rights” (and close analogues) as a means of ensuring that any decision to commit the nation to war would rest exclusively with the political branches, and not with the judiciary or the states.
...
After the founding, public officials and judges initially debated a question similar to the one that dominates customary international law debates today: whether federal courts have Article III power to adopt the law of nations as part of a preemptive, jurisdictiontriggering federal common law. They ultimately moved beyond this question, concluding that the constitutional structure precludes the existence of a federal municipal common law. Instead, they recognized the perfect rights of sovereigns as essential background for understanding the Constitution’s allocation of powers.
This Article recovers this lost context and, in the process, identifies a third way to conceptualize how important aspects of the law of nations have interacted with the federal system.
Our account recaptures the Founders’ understanding of core aspects of the law of nations and best describes the Supreme Court’s reliance on such law in key cases throughout American history."
The full, long (93 pages), and heavily footnoted article can be found here:
http://www.columbialawreview.org/assets/pdfs/109/1/Bellia___Clark.pdf
Immigration and National Act 1995 by Diane Publishing Company page 285
Excellent work as always, thank you for the pings!
The link to the testimony before the House Judiciary Committee defining natural born and matter of blood the same.
Would like to see the complete testimony of Dr. Laughlin.
III-1750-1770
What progress, if any, was made in the acquiring of French in America in the years 1750 to 1770? We may say, first of all, that there is no reason to suppose any lower percentage among the Americans could read or understand French than in the previous years; and we may add, in the second place, that the period is marked by an increase in the amount of formal instruction in the French language.
Thus, following the debacle of Langloisserie at Harvard, Mr. Curtis, on avowing himself to be a protestant, was permitted to teach French in 1769. At the future University of Pennsylvania in 1754 Professor William Creamer became the first faculty member to teach French and German, continuing until 1775; Professor Creamer's position originated from Franklin's idea of teaching French at the Academy of Philadelphia (founded in 1749) as an extra-mural or private study. In the same university Paul Fooks commenced to teach French and Spanish in 1766. Paul Fooks,by the by, did legal work in three languages. In the same city Elizabeth Murphy offered instruction in French from seven to nine in the morning so that children might go to school-a fact in itself significant as to the spread of French. Meanwhile the petits maztres were regularly offering to teach French as well as dancing and fencing. In 1750 Franklin drew up a scheme for the university in which French had a prominent part. At Princeton President Witherspoon introduced French into the curriculum in 1768.
Laughlin, H. H.
“Analysis of America’s Modern Melting Pot,”
Hearings before the Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, House of Representatives, 67th Congress, 3rd Session (Nov. 21, 1922) Serial 7-C, pp. 742, 790.
Hearings before the House Committee on Immigration and Naturaliza- tion (67 Cong., 3 Sess.) on Analysis of .America’s Modern Melting Pot, Serial 7-C (Washington, 1923, pp. 725-831), containing statement of Harry H. Laughlin, have been printed; also (67 Cong., 2 Sess.) Hearings on Immigration for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1922, Serial 6-B (1922, pp. 593-625), containing statements of W. W. Husband and R. C. White.
The actual testimony is natural inborn not natural born. Not sure if this makes a difference.
Page 10 http://old.dnalc.org/ddnalc/ben/index.html?id=1126
Thank you for the ping and for your hard work!
Good find there on Inglis.
Thank you and all the other scholars — patriots all — for your painstaking research into the historical origins and fundamental precepts that underpin our constitution.
STE=Q
No wonder Hussein wants control of the internet.
THANKS jameseeeeeeeeeee!
an introduction to the translator who replaced Fooks..very intresting read..he came to the US at 17 or 18..as an translator for Baron Steuben (sp), translated for Livingston..had a massive library..including Vattel..met Franklin at the age of 17.
Case Footnote:
4. The plaintiff in error being of legeance to the crown of England, his child, though born in the United States during his father’s temporary residence therein – twenty-two months and twenty days – not withstanding its mother be an American citizen, is not a citizen of the United States. It is incapacitate by its infancy from making any present election, follows the legeance of its father, partus sequitur patrem, and is a British subject. The father being domiciled and resident within the dominions of Her Britannic Majesty, such is also the proper and rightful domicil of his wife and child, and he has a legal right to remove them thither. The child being detained from the father, its natural guardian and protector, without authority of law, and writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum is his appropriate legal remedy for its restoration to him from its present illegal detention and restraint. Constitution United States, art. 3, sec. 2; Judiciary Act, 1789, sec. 11; Inglis v. Trustees Sailor’s Snug Harbor, 3 Peters, 99; 7 Anne, cap. 5; 4 Geo. III. cap. 21; Warrender v. Warrender, 2 Clar. & Fin. Ap. Ca. 523; Story’s Confl. Laws, 30, 36, 43, 74, 160; Shelford on Marriage, Ferg. Rep. 397, 398.
Case Footnote:
4. The plaintiff in error being of legeance to the crown of England, his child, though born in the United States during his father’s temporary residence therein – twenty-two months and twenty days – not withstanding its mother be an American citizen, is not a citizen of the United States. It is incapacitate by its infancy from making any present election, follows the legeance of its father, partus sequitur patrem, and is a British subject. The father being domiciled and resident within the dominions of Her Britannic Majesty, such is also the proper and rightful domicil of his wife and child, and he has a legal right to remove them thither. The child being detained from the father, its natural guardian and protector, without authority of law, and writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum is his appropriate legal remedy for its restoration to him from its present illegal detention and restraint. Constitution United States, art. 3, sec. 2; Judiciary Act, 1789, sec. 11; Inglis v. Trustees Sailor’s Snug Harbor, 3 Peters, 99; 7 Anne, cap. 5; 4 Geo. III. cap. 21; Warrender v. Warrender, 2 Clar. & Fin. Ap. Ca. 523; Story’s Confl. Laws, 30, 36, 43, 74, 160; Shelford on Marriage, Ferg. Rep. 397, 398. The mother took the case before the Supreme Court and they dismissed her request as they did not have jusrisdiction to hear the case & thus the lower court ruling was upheld. The child ast birth was NOT a US citizen just because it was born on US soil to a mother who was an American prior to her marriage to the British subject.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.