The Times, Thursday, Oct 03, 1793; pg. 4; Issue 2796; col A (from America)
Posted on 05/12/2010 12:36:53 PM PDT by rxsid
"Executive Order
May 19, 1898
The SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY,
...
As the levy of all contributions in territory occupied by a belligerent is a military right derived from the law of nations, the collection and distribution of duties and taxes in the Philippines during the military occupation of the United States will be made, under the orders of the Secretary of War and the Secretary of the Navy, by the military or naval commanders, as the case may be, of the ports or places which may be in the possession of our forces. Your report is desired in order that I may be able to give the proper directions to the Department of War and of the Navy. "
"Special Message
December 18, 1893
To the Senate and House of Representatives:
...
The law of nations is rounded upon reason and justice, and the rules of conduct governing individual relations between citizens or subjects of a civilized state are equally applicable as between enlightened nations. "
"Special Message
July 14, 1870
To the Senate of the United States:
I transmit to the Senate, in answer to their resolution of the 7th instant, a report from the Secretary of State, with accompanying documents.
U. S. GRANT.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
Washington, July 14, 1870.
...
The public measures designed to maintain unimpaired the domestic sovereignty and the international neutrality of the United States were independent of this policy, though apparently incidental to it. The municipal laws enacted by Congress then and since have been but declarations of the law of nations. They are essential to the preservation of our national dignity and honor; they have for their object to repress and punish all enterprises of private war, one of the last relics of mediaeval barbarism; and they have descended to us from the fathers of the Republic, supported and enforced by every succeeding President of the United States. "
"Fourth Annual Message
December 6, 1864
...
For myself, I have no doubt of the power and duty of the Executive, under the law of nations, to exclude enemies of the human race from an asylum in the United States. If Congress should think that proceedings in such cases lack the authority of law, or ought to be further regulated by it, I recommend that provision be made for effectually preventing foreign slave traders from acquiring domicile and facilities for their criminal occupation in our country."
"Proclamation 101 - Enrollment of Aliens for Military Duty
May 8, 1863
Whereas it is claimed by and in behalf of persons of foreign birth within the ages specified in said act who have heretofore declared on oath their intentions to become citizens under and in pursuance of the laws of the United States, and who have not exercised the right of suffrage or any other political franchise under the laws of the United States or of any of the States thereof, that they are not absolutely concluded by their aforesaid declaration of intention from renouncing their purpose to become citizens, and that, on the contrary, such persons, under treaties or the law of nations, retain a right to renounce that purpose and to forego the privileges of citizenship and residence within the United States under the obligations imposed by the aforesaid act of Congress:"
"Message to the Senate on the Arrest of William Walker in Nicaragua
January 7, 1858
To the Senate of the United States:
The crime of setting on foot or providing the means for a military expedition within the United States to make war against a foreign state with which we are at peace is one of an aggravated and dangerous character, and early engaged the attention of Congress. Whether the executive government possesses any, or what, power under the Constitution, independently of Congress, to prevent or punish this and similar offenses against the law of nations was a subject which engaged the attention of our most eminent statesmen in the time of the Administration of General Washington and on the occasion of the French Revolution. The act of Congress of the 5th of June, 1794, fortunately removed all the difficulties on this question which had theretofore existed. The fifth and seventh sections of this act, which relate to the present question, are the same in substance with the sixth and eighth sections of the act of April 20, 1818, and have now been in force for a period more than sixty years.
...
The avowed principle which lies at the foundation of the law of nations is contained in the divine command that "all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you do ye even so to them." "
Good stuff. :-)
Prior to the, now famous, quote by Bingham:
“every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.”(Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866)).
We see that Bingham had reiterated Vattel's definition 4 years earlier!
All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens . Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.(Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862)).
There should be zero question, that the "father" of the 14th Amendment (which concerns citizenship among other things) knew that the framers relied on Vattel's definition for who is a "Natural Born Citizen" and reiterated it multiple times during discussions of citizenship and the 14th Amendment.
sweet... good find...further proof that this was a hot subject in the US Congress for many years leading up the the 14th
BTTT for a good find.
There was a time when every American knew what a “natural born citizen” was. We have to reeducate the country. We can’t afford to ever forget this.
It appeared as a cited comment in Ron Chernoff’s Biography of Alexander Hamilton which itself cites a 27 volume work published by Columbia University Press, but I found the letter here:
Hamilton's comment is included in a letter to Washington which you can read for yourself, which lists the most important legal authorities as the U.S. and its first President assert their policies to the world. Hamilton to Washington, Sept 15, 1790:
“But Vatel, perhaps the most accurate and approved of the writers on the laws of nations, preserves a mean between these1 different opinions.”
The Times, Thursday, Oct 03, 1793; pg. 4; Issue 2796; col A (from America)
While Grotius's work was well known & read among the educated colonists, his works tended to include too much of the german civil code of allegiance which was heavily weighted in feudal doctrine of perpetualness. The german’s reasoning was that God was the Supreme and thus the church was God's earthly representative, no man could remove himself from his duty to the Church. This was the case also in England, the King & the Church were one. It is the heart of feudal law that didn't seed a permanent hold in England until the late 1500’s. The truth is, the church dictated much of the laws that got passed. It also dictated the execution/English holocaust of 1000’s of catholic parishioners based purely on their religion in Ireland that directly lead to the England conquering Ireland. Grotius, Pufendorf, Sidney & Locke's works weighted heavily on religion and all spoke of some allegiance to the Almighty that could not be cast off. However, by the time of Sidney & Locke, the right of expatriation finally got it's proper place so that when Vattel’s works came along, natural law of nations was the prominent dictate & religion became the lesser.
The big misnomer today is that Grotius, Pufendorf, Sidney & Locke were works of laws of nations when in fact they were largely works on natural law with a splash of law of nations & right of movement. Locke's works disputed Grotius and lead the path to the right of movement and the dismantling of the feudal doctrine of perpetual allegiance in England that is now the law today. Children born to aliens in England today, do not get British citizenship. But unfortunately for them, it may have come too late. For us, we still have time, but the clock is ticking on this subject.
The Franklin letter to Dumas thanking him for the copies of Vattel’s Law of Nations stating it was being put to good use by the “Congress now sitting” was signed by Franklin, John Dickinson and John Jay.
B. Franklin.
Mons. Dumas.
Philadelphia Dec. 12. 1775.
We the underwritten, appointed by the american congress a committee of foreign correspondence having perused the above Letter, Written at our Request, do approve and confirm the same.
(Signed) John Dickinson
John Jay
http://www.franklinpapers.org/franklin/framedVolumes.jsp
Yeah, I’ve seen that as well (not in person though). From U. Penn.
For Vattel, the state belongs to the nation, which may therefore adopt its constitution itself, and change to achieve the goal that is his. He cited the Constitution of England (”that cost, it is true, streams of blood, but it has not bought too dear”, p.29). In this he is the precursor of the revolution of independence of the United States and the French Revolution.
http://fr.jurispedia.org/index.php/Vattel,_Emer_de
3 grandchildren (2, 6, 10) + baking & decorating Christmas cookies + 4 new kitties in the house & one 15 yr old nearly blind dalmatian = DISASTER!
I just got my computer reloaded and lost most of the files from the past month as I had not done a back-up since October. The good news...I am now signed up with carbonite!
From: http://books.google.com/books?id=k7c_AAAAcAAJ
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.