Posted on 05/12/2010 12:36:53 PM PDT by rxsid
Great find! Yet another early example that shows that a natural born citizen (let alone “citizen” as described in this case) is not one born to a foreign father, and who they (the child) is born with foreign citizenship/subject.
§. 118. . . It is plain then, by the practice of governments themselves, as well as by the law of right reason, that a child is born a subject of no country or government. He is under his father's tuition and authority, till he comes to age of discretion ; and then he is a freeman, at liberty what government he will put himself under, what body politic he will unite himself to: for if an Englishman's son, born in France, be at liberty, and may do so, it is evident there is no tie upon him by his father's being a subject of this kingdom; nor is he bound up by any compact of his ancestors. And why then hath not his son, by the same reason, the same liberty, though he be born any where else?
Since the power that a father hath naturally over his children, is the same, wherever they be born, and the ties of natural obligations are not bounded by the positive limits of kingdoms and commonwealths.
§. 119. Every man being, as has been shewed, naturally free, and nothing being able to put him into subjection to any earthly power, but only his own consent; it is to be considered, what shall be understood to be a sufficient declaration of a man's consent, to make him subject to the laws of any government.
Webster's American Dictionary of the English Language (both 1828 & 1846 editions):
ALIEN: 1. Foreign, not belonging to the same country, land or government; 2. belonging to one who is not a citizen
Now of course Webster goes go on to cite the French & British definitions, but then we are talking about those who are born alien to America, not to the French or the British. Also, and end note to the drones & obots, a read of the Book of Genesis might help you to understand the the beginnings of natural law & the father as the sovereign over the child until the child comes of age and established his own territory, thereby establishing his own sovereignty over his descendants. It's all quite basic when one has the ability to reason with rationality.
§. 102. He must shew a strange inclination to deny evident matter of fact, when it agrees not with his hypothesis, who will not allow, that the beginning of Rome and Venice were by the uniting together of several men free and independent one of another, amongst whom there was no natural superiority or subjection. And if Joseph us Acosta's word may be taken, he tells us, that in many parts of America there was no government at all. “ There are great and apparent conjectures,” says he, “that these men, speaking of those of Peru, for a long time had neither kings nor commonwealths, but lived in troops, as they do to this day in Florida, the Cheriquanas, those of Brazil, and many other nations, which have no certain kings, but as occasion is offered, in peace or war, they “ choose their captains as they please,” 1. i. c.25. If it be said, that every man there was born subject to his father, or the head of his family; that the subjection due from a child to a father took not away his freedom of uniting into what political society he thought fit, has been already proved. But be that as it will, these men, it is evident, were actually free; and whatever superiority some politicians now would place in any of them, they themselves claimed it not, but by consent were all equal, till by the same consent they set rulers over themselves. So that their politic societies all began from a voluntary union, and the mutual agreement of men freely acting in the choice of their governors, and forms of government!
§. 103. And I hope those who went away from Sparta with Palantus, mentioned by Justin, 1. iii. c. 4. will be allowed to have been freemen independent one of another, and to have set up a government over themselves, by their own consent. Thus I have given several examples out of history, of people free and in the state of nature, that being met together incorporated and began a commonwealth. And if the want of such instances be an argument to prove that government were not, nor could not be so begun, I suppose the contenders for paternal empire were better to let it alone, than urge it against natural liberty : for if they can give so many instances, out of history, of governments begun upon paternal right, I think (though at best an argument from what has been, to what should of right be, has no great force) one might, without any great danger, yield them the cause. But’ if I might advise them in the case, they would do well not to search too much into the original of governments, as they have begun de facto, lest they should find, at the foundation of most of them, something very little favourable to the design they promote, and such a power as they contend for.
§. 104. But to conclude, reason being plain on our side, that men are naturally free, and the examples of history shewing, that the governments of the world, that were begun in peace, had their beginning laid on that foundation, and were made by the consent of the people; there can be little room for doubt, either where the right is, or what has been the opinion, or practice of mankind, about the first erecting of governments.
§. 105. I will not deny, that if we look back as far as history will direct us, towards the original of commonwealths, we shall generally find them under the government and administration of one man. And I am also apt to believe, that where a family was numerous enough to subsist by itself, and continued entire together, without mixing with others, as it often happens, where there is much land, and few people, the government commonly began in the father.
1771 Edition of the Encyclopedia Brit
America and the Law of Nations 1776-1939
Janis, Mark Weston, William F. Starr Professor of Law, University of Connecticut School of Law, and Visiting Fellow in Law, University of Oxford
ISBN-13: 978-0-19-957934-1
From Chapter 2:
2 Jefferson, Madison, and Marshall: The Law of Nations and the New Republic
No group of America's leaders has ever been more mindful of the law of nations than were the Founding Fathers. This chapter tells a little of that story. It begins with American perceptions of the law of nations during the Revolution and Confederation (1776-1789), focusing on Thomas Jefferson and the Declaration of Independence. Second, it turns to the importance of the law of nations in the framing of the US Constitution (1787-1789), focusing on James Madison. Third, the chapter explores how the founders relied on international law in early American diplomacy. Finally, it looks to the incorporation of the law of nations in early American judicial practice, particularly the contribution made by John Marshall.Good find bushpilot1.
Vattel's "The Law of Nations" translated from the French by M. Wattel
London 1760
Thank you for the ping, great find! I look forward to any discussion.
Wonderful! Thank you so much!
Great!
ty u rock!
Correction. Not “by M. Wattel”, but rather “by M. de Vattel”.
Thanks, rxsid. Must admit, it was difficult for me to read but it’s there, in black and white. BO is NOT an American, natural born citizen.
Maybe you should forward this to every judge, including the SCOTUS.
***************************
If, what appear to be relatively (historically) unknown, lawyers have this knowledge of and reliance upon the Law of Nations, clearly the framers of the Declaration of Independence (& Constitution) did as well.
"All Europe must allow, that while America was in the greatest good humour with her old mother, a scheme was laid to keep up a large standing army in her capital towns, and to tax her at pleasure for the support of it. They see that, from time to time, the most fraudulent and violent measures have been taken to support their entirely unprecedented claim, till at last, drained of their national troops, they have applied for assistance to other nations. By the law of nations , we were discharged from our allegiance the moment the army was posted among us without our consent, or a single farthing taken from us in like manner; either of these being fundamental subversions of the constitutions. It remains entirely with ourselves to have ample justice done to us. We have nothing to do but declare off, and appeal to the droit des gens."
Good stuff. Thanks for the ping.
Excellent find!
Thanks!
Thanks for the ping.
Another little puzzle piece falls into place.
AT a meeting of the freeholders and other inhabitants of the town of Boston, duly warned and assembled in Faneuil Hall according to law, on Friday the 20th of November, 1772, then and there to receive and act upon the report of a committee appointed at a former meeting, on the 2d of the same month, and such other things as might properly come under the consideration of the town; the Honourable JOHN HANCOCK, Esquire, being unanimously chosen Moderation, the Chairman of said committee acquainted him that he was ready to make report, and read the same as follows;
...
Natural rights of the colonists as MEN.Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: First, a right to life ; secondly, to liberty ; thirdly, to property ; [Edit: Sounds familiar in parts?] together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can. These are evident branches of, rather than deductions from, the duty of self-preservation, commonly called the first law of nature.
All men have a right to remain in a state of nature as long as they please; and in case of intollerable oppression, civil or religious, to leave the society they belong to, and enter into another.
When men enter into society it is by voluntary consent; and they have a right to demand and insist upon the performance of such conditions, and previous limitation, as from an equitable original compact . Every natural right, not expressly given up, or from the nature of a social compact necessarily ceded, remains.
All positive and civil laws, should conform, as far as possible, to the law of natural reason and equity.
As neither reason requires, nor religion permits, the contrary, every man living in or out of a state of civil society has a right peaceably and quietly to worship God, according to the dictates of his conscience.
" Just and true liberty, equal and impartial liberty ," in matters spiritual and temporal, is a thing that all men are clearly entitled to by the eternal and immutable laws of God and nature, as well as by the law of nations , and all well grounded municipal laws which must have their foundation in the former.
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.