Skip to comments.Newsweek Insults Barack Obama As an ‘Anchor Baby’
Posted on 09/04/2010 12:25:57 PM PDT by rxsid
"Newsweek Insults Barack Obama As an Anchor Baby
[4th from the top, left column]
In a list of famous Americans with a parent (or both) born in another country, the un-bylined last page Back Story of this weeks Newsweek listed BARACK OBAMA (Kenyan Father) on the page headlined: Whats So Scary About an Anchor Baby? The brief text below the headline, and on top of the diaper, made clear the magazines attempt to undermine those suggesting citizenship should no longer be automatically conferred on anyone born within the United States:
Theres a movement afoot to alter the 14th amendment, the one that guarantees citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil. Combine this with anti-immigrant policies like Arizonas and you begin to question the idea of America as a melting pot -- as a nation of mothers and fathers welcomed here to seek better lives. But the country has benefited richly from their sons and daughters (right).
An anchor baby is a child born to parents in the U.S. illegally, so is the magazine suggesting that Obamas father, as well as parents of the 32 others in their list, were all illegal aliens at the time of the births of their famous offspring? Talk about flinging scurrilous allegations and encouraging the birther crowd."
|HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN?|
When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdoms dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.s children.http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate.html
Factcheck.org goes on to say this about Obama Sr., Jr. and the British Nationality Act of 1948:
In other words, at the time of his birth, Barack Obama Jr. was both a U.S. citizen (by virtue of being born in Hawaii) and a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (or the UKC) by virtue of being born to a father who was a citizen of the UKC.http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/does_barack_obama_have_kenyan_citizenship.html
Even the modern day State Department rules discusses the problems associated with dual citizenship:
7 FAM 081: U.S. Policy on Dual Nationality:http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86563.pdf
(e)While recognizing the existence of dual nationality, the U.S. Government does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause. Dual nationality may hamper efforts by the U.S. Government to provide diplomatic and consular protection to individuals overseas. When a U.S. citizen is in the other country of their dual nationality, that country has a predominant claim on the person.
the U.S. Supreme Court has stated that dual nationality is a "status long recognized in the law" and that "a person may have and exercise rights of nationality in two countries and be subject to the responsibilities of both." See Kawakita v. United States, 343 U.S. 717 (1952).
So, back to the question: "HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN?"
It can't. Of course not. Yet, right there, on his campaign web site F.T.S., it's stated that a foreign government "governed" Barry from birth and the reason it did, was that Barry inherited that foreign citizenship by way of his foreign national father (no matter where he was born), a fact backed up by Factcheck.org. Assuming, of course, that Sr. was his legal father at birth.
How, then, could he possibly be a "Natural Born Citizen" of the U.S.?
Barry Soetoro, the divided citizen at birth!
|Barack Obama a/k/a Barry Soetoro *||NOT Obama / Soetoro|
|* This assumes HI birth.
A citizen of 2 countries at birth.
Furthermore: Hawaii's Territorial Law, Chapter 57 - "VITAL STATISTICS, I", shown beginning pg 23 of 29, (the law in effect in 1961) allowed the parents (or grandparents or other relative) of baby's born anywhere in the world to be eligible to apply for a Hawaiian birth certificate. A mailed-in form (without mention of a hospital, doctor, or midwife) signed by one of his grandparents (who forged the parent signature(s)) would have been enough to set up a birth record and a birth certificate at the Dept of Health. The Dept of Health would (presumably) then have automatically sent the names of the parents, their address as given on the mailed-in form , the gender of the child, and the date of birth to the Honolulu Advertiser and Star-Bulletin. The address given for the parents in the newspaper announcements is actually, however, the August 1961 home address of Obamas maternal grandparents Stanley and Madelyn Dunham [6085 Kalanianaole Highway], and not the 1961 home address of Barack Obama, Sr. [625 11th Ave].).
Bottom line: Even IF (big IF) he was born in HI, he inherited his father's foreign citizenship as well, making him a US citizen by US law and a subject to the crown of her majesty the Queen of England by inheritance, birthright and England's law. He could not be considered a Natural Born Citizen as known by and as intended by the framers.
What follows, is a bit of information with regards to the Constitutional term "Natural Born Citizen" (specifically) and NOT about the entire makeup, functions, origins and influences that made/make up our form of government, a Constitutional Republic. Clearly, the framers relied upon many different sources to create our new form of government.
Who, or "what" constituted a natural born citizen was well known to the framers. Jay would not have made such a suggestion to the others (Washington & the rest of those in attendance at the Constitutional Convention) unless there was a clear understanding of what that term meant. The definition comes from a source that not only were the framers familiar with, but the founders (many who were both) as well. And yes, even though most could not speak French, most read French (except, notably, Washington who would defer to Jefferson when such interpretation was needed).
NBC in the Constitutional drafts:
June 18th, 1787 - Alexander Hamilton suggests that the requirement be added, as: "No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States." Works of Alexander Hamilton (page 407).
July 25, 1787 (~5 weeks later) - John Jay writes a letter to General Washington (president of the Constitutional Convention): "Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen." [the word born is underlined in Jay's letter which signifies the importance of allegiance from birth.] http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field%28DOCID+@lit%28fr00379%29%29:
September 2nd, 1787 George Washington pens a letter to John Jay. The last line reads: "I thank you for the hints contained in your letter"
September 4th, 1787 (~6 weeks after Jay's letter and just 2 days after Washington wrote back to Jay) - The "Natural Born Citizen" requirement is now found in their drafts. Madison's notes of the Convention
The proposal passed unanimously without debate.
Original French version of Vattel's Law of Nations:
Emer de Vattel, Le droit des gens, ou Principes de la loi naturelle, vol. 1 (of 2) 
From Chapter XIX, 212 (page 248 of 592):
Title in French: "Des citoyens et naturels"
To English: "Citizens and natural"
French text (about citizens): "Les citoyens sont les membres de la societe civile : lies a cette societe par certains devoirs et soumis a son autorite, ils participent avec egalite a ses avantages."
To English: "The citizens are the members of the civil society: linked to this society by certain duties and subject to its authority, they participate with equality has its advantages."
French text (about "natural" born citizens): "Les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays, de parens citoyens"
To English, gives this: "the natural, or indigenous, are those born in the country, parents who are citizens"
A detailed, historical, etymology of the term "Natural Born Citizen" can be found here: http://www.greschak.com/essays/natborn/index.htm
Prior to the Constitution
"This 1758 work by Swiss legal philosopher Emmerich de Vattel is of special importance to scholars of constitutional history and law, for it was read by many of the Founders of the United States of America, and informed their understanding of the principles of law which became established in the Constitution of 1787. Chitty's notes and the appended commentaries by Edward D. Ingraham, used in lectures at William and Mary College, provide a valuable perspective on Vattel's exposition from the viewpoint of American jurists who had adapted those principles to the American legal experience."
Vattel's Law of Nations, built upon "natural law - which has it's roots in ancient Greece, was influenced by Leibniz.
Even Blackstone affirmed the basis of natural law:
"This law of nature, being co-eval with mankind and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original (1979, 41). In this passage, Blackstone articulates the two claims that constitute the theoretical core of conceptual naturalism: 1) there can be no legally valid standards that conflict with the natural law; and 2) all valid laws derive what force and authority they have from the natural law."
Thomas Jefferson (for one example) had the 1758 version as well as a 1775 version in his own library:
Thomas Jefferson's Library: A Catalog with the Entries in His Own Order (under a section he titled "Ethics. Law of Nature and Nations."
In AUTOBIOGRAPHY by Thomas Jefferson, he states: "On the 1st of June 1779. I was appointed Governor of the Commonwealth and retired from the legislature. Being elected also one of the Visitors of Wm. & Mary college, a self-electing body, I effected, during my residence in Williamsburg that year, a change in the organization of that institution by abolishing the Grammar school, and the two professorships of Divinity & Oriental languages, and substituting a professorship of Law & Police, one of Anatomy Medicine and Chemistry, and one of Modern languages; and the charter confining us to six professorships, we added the law of Nature & Nations..." This was 8 years prior the the writing of the Constitution! [See the "Law of Nature & Nations" section of his personal library to get an idea of what he included in this curriculum in America's 1st law school].
Note: Vattel, is one of only 10 "footnotes" in Jefferson's Biography, from Yale.
Prior to Jay's famous letter to those in attendance at the Constitutional Convention, we see (one of many exchanges between the founders) a letter from Madison ("father" of the Constitution) to Jay:
"James Madison, as a member of the Continental Congress in 1780, drafted the instructions sent to John Jay, for negotiating a treaty with Spain, which quotes at length from The Law of Nations. Jay complained that this letter, which was probably read by the Spanish government, was not in code, and "Vattel's Law of Nations, which I found quoted in a letter from Congress, is prohibited here."
From: Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit of Happiness. How the Natural Law concept of G.W. Leibniz Inspired America's Founding Fathers.
The concepts of "natural law" and the phrase "Laws of Nature" (of which Law of Nations is built upon) are found within the Declaration of Independence itself:
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.Those (& others) are clearly NOT derived from English law, but rather from natural law concepts (which can be found in Vattel's Law of Nations).
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed
The concepts of "natural law" continued in the Constitution:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect UnionAgain, those phrases are not from English common law, but rather from natural law and even mention Vattel's book by name, "Law of Nations."
Article 1. section 8, clause 10:
"To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations"
After the Constitution is penned
Founder and Historian David Ramsay Defines a Natural Born Citizen in 1789.
David Ramsay (April 2, 1749 to May 8, 1815) was an American physician, patriot, and historian from South Carolina and a delegate from that state to the Continental Congress in 1782-1783 and 1785-1786. He was the Acting President of the United States in Congress Assembled. He was one of the American Revolutions first major historians. A contemporary of Washington, Ramsay writes with the knowledge and insights one acquires only by being personally involved in the events of the Founding period.
Ramsay REAFFIRMS the definition a Natural Born Citizen (born in country, to citizen parents (plural)) in 1789 A Dissertation on the Manners of Acquiring the Character and Privileges of a Citizen (1789)
The Naturalization Act of 1790, which states (in relevant part) "that the children of citizens [plural] of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as natural-born citizens"
Of course, the Act of 1790 was repealed by the Act of 1795 (which did NOT attempt to define or extend the definition for NBC). What the 1st Congress had tried to do in 1790 was to EXTEND the known definition (of born in country to citizen parentS) to those born outside of sovereign territory, to citizen parentS. Of course, they can't do that. Congress (by itself) doesn't have the Constitutional authority to define (or EXTEND) the Constitutional term "Natural Born Citizen." Only a SCOTUS decision on the intent of the framers, or an amendment to the Constitution can do that.
The same definition was referenced in the dicta of many early SCOTUS cases as well...some examples:
"THE VENUS, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (Marshall, C.J. concurring) (cites Vattels definition of Natural Born Citizen)
SHANKS V. DUPONT, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830) (same definition without citing Vattel)
MINOR V. HAPPERSETT, 88 U.S.162,167-168 ( 1875) (same definition without citing Vattel)
EX PARTE REYNOLDS, 1879, 5 Dill., 394, 402 (same definition and cites Vattel)
UNITED STATES V WARD, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D. Cal. 1890) (same definition and cites Vattel.)"
The New Englander, Volume 3 (1845) states: "The expression citizen of the United States occurs in the clauses prescribing qualifications for Representatives, for Senators, and for President. In the latter, the term natural born citizen is used and excludes all persons owing allegiance by birth to foreign states."
Note: the "New Englander" was NOT a student law review. The first student law review appeared 30 years later, in 1875/76 at the Albany Law School..
Vattel's definition for "natural born citizen" was read into the Congressional Record after the Civil War.
John Bingham, "father" of the 14th Amendment, the abolitionist congressman from Ohio who prosecuted Lincoln's assassins, REAFFIRMED the definition known to the framers by saying this:
commenting on Section 1992 said it means 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))"
SCOTUS, in an 1887 case cites Vattel a number of times and reitterates that his work was translated into English in 1760:
"Vattel in his Law of Nations, which was first printed at Neuchatel in 1758, and was translated into English and published in England in 1760" U S v. ARJONA, 120 U.S. 479 (1887)
It's interesting to note that (non binding) Senate Resolution 511, which attempted to proclaim that Sen. John McCain was a "Natural Born Citizen" because he was born to citizen parentS, even they referenced the (repealed) Naturalization Act of 1790: "Whereas such limitations would be inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the `natural born Citizen' clause of the Constitution of the United States, as evidenced by the First Congress's own statute defining the term `natural born Citizen'".
Obama, himself, was a signatory of that resolution knowing full well (no doubt) the requirement has always been about 2 citizen parents.
The point is, with the exception of the repealed Act of 1790 which tried to EXTEND the definition, the meaning of the term "Natural Born Citizen" (of the U.S.) has ALWAYS been about being born within the sovereign territory or jurisdiction of the U.S. to 2 citizen parents (& therefore parents who do NOT owe allegiance to another, foreign, country).
"Newsweek Insults Barack Obama As an Anchor Baby"
Is Mitt Romney on the list? His parents were born in Mexico, so Mitt is an “anchor baby.”
The only way TIME can legitimize the concept of the anchor baby is by lying about what an anchor baby is. That’s true of most liberal arguments as well.
Or NEWSWEEK. I get them mixed up because they’re basically the same magazine.
"This amendment which I have offered [citizenship clause to the fourteenth amendment] is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."
I am so sick of this *anchor baby* crap. My grandparents came here from Russia and the Ukraine. They HAD TO BE SPONSORED!! They came because they wanted the freedom that America offered...nothing more...no *hand outs*. Heck, they couldn’t even speak English but learned and made sure their chidren (my parents) knew how fortunate they were to be born here.
And I’m supposed to *accept* that the ILLEGALS come here because they’re just looking for work? Come here LEGALLY to look for work. Until then, I don’t owe them a damn thing.
Obviously, this is an issue and there is something there. Late 2011 will be a very interesting time, that we can be sure of. That’s when the facts known and now being put together will all come out. I wouldn’t be surprised if he decides to not run again and let’s Hillary take his place. Maybe that was the agreement from day one for all we know.
I highly suspect that is exactly what is behind the left's strategy. They want to keep focus on where he was born, as if that is the only question. The longer the delay, the more they can make those who care about the Constitution look desperate and silly when (if) it comes time to address the OTHER (not related to birth location) issues required to legally be POTUS.
My goodness these people are STUPID!
Where the foreign born parents of all these people illegals?
And Obama’s mother was a natural born American citizen, as were many others on this list I presume. So their American citizenship would have NOTHING to do with their fathers.
Why am I even taking the time to write this?
Because these people are soooooooo stupid they make my hair hurt.
But they think we’re the morons.
I hope their little pea brains start ticking like timebombs this november and finally EXPLODE when Sarah Palin is elected president in Nov, 2012.
Technically, my son, who's middle name could have been "A manha depois Carnaval '97" could be defined as an anchor baby.
I just had an awakening.
By Newsweek’s definition I’m an anchor baby.
My father did check in at Ellis Island though.
RE: the Law of Nations
Article 1 Section 8 of COTUS contains the line “To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;”
Law of Nations is capitalized, like one would do when citing a Book.
Have any scholars come out with an opinion on whether (or not) that is a specific reference to Vattel’s book?
If it is a specific reference to Vattel it seems like that would be huge.
Note: this topic is from September 4, 2010. Thanks rxsid.
So are "Piracies" and "Felonies." In fact, almost all nouns are capitalized in the Constitution-- that was 18th century style.
So are "Piracies" and "Felonies." In fact, almost all nouns are capitalized in the Constitution-- that was 18th century style.
If it is, "simply" a noun (that's an actual phrase and not a single word), why isn't the whole thing capitalized? Like "Law Of Nations" instead of "Law of Nations" like the book title?
Seriously, do you think the Constitution gave Congress the power to criminalize violations of Vattel's book?
In correspondence with the publisher of the English edition of Vattel, Benjamin Franklin reported, "[The text] has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress now sitting, who . . . have entertained a high and just esteem for [its] author."196 Modern scholars have noted further that Vattel significantly influenced the Constitution.197 It is in this light that we should regard Article I, which grants Congress the power to "define and punish . . . Offences against the Law of Nations,"198 and Article VI, which declares that "Treaties . . . shall be the supreme Law of the Land."199http://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?49+Duke+L.+J.+1077
You say that "of" is a preposition. So, is a preposition a noun? If not, how can a noun contain a preposition? If it can not, then "Law of Nations" is not merely some "noun" that you speak of.
“Law” is a noun. “Nations” is a noun. “Piracies” is a noun. “Felonies” is a noun. “Seas” is a noun. “Offenses” is a noun. All are capitalized in the same sentence. All the nouns in the Constitution are capitalized.
The pertinent sentence of the Constitution reads:
"To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;"
Piracies and Felonies are clearly separate items. They are single words. They are nouns.
It then goes on to state "Offences" against something.
Against the Law? The Law of What? Just the Law? Who's Law?
the "Law of Nations"
"Law of Nations" is NOT a noun. What it appears to be, as stated by WILLIAM R. NIFONG from the Duke Law Journal article above, is a reference to a collection of ideas found in a particular Book Title.
Furthermore, "Law of Nations" is contained in a sentence that deals with what?
It deals with "Piracies" and "Felonies committed on the high Seas"
That sounds VERY familiar if one is familiar with Vattel's "Law of Nations."
I believe that your theory that the phrase "Law of Nations" is merely a noun, is unfounded.
The phrase "law of nations" was the 18th century term for what we today call "international law." The Supreme Court uses the phrase in that sense many times in the 18th and 19th centuries. Vattel wrote a book about international law. The Constitution gave Congress the power to criminalize acts in violation of international law (e.g., war crimes). The words "Law" and "Nations" are capitalized not because they refer specifically to Vattel's book, but because all nouns in the Constitution were capitalized. Unless you are saying that "Piracies and Felonies" is also the name of a book? How about "high Seas"-- why is "Seas" capitalized?
Once you recognize that all nouns in the Constitution are capitalized, the theory that "Law of Nations" refers specifically to Vattel's book, as opposed to being a general reference to a topic which Vattel happened to write about, falls apart.
Your theory that the phrase "Law of Nations" is merely a noun, is impossible. You even stated, the word "of" is a preposition. I'm unaware of any phrase that is also a noun and that noun is also a preposition. You can't make that phrase into a noun no matter how much you want it to be one.
In the context of the sentence it was written, and the way in which that part of the sentence was written, is well within reason that that phrase "Law of Nations" and offenses against it implies the concepts found in, specifically, Vattel's legal treatise that the founders and framers were well acquainted with and relied upon to help build our nation. We know from Franklin's writings, and from those made during the Constitutional Convention itself, that the framers read from and utilized Vattel's legal treatise when they drafted the Constitution.
If you really really want to believe it's got nothing to do with the clearly influential Vattel, then you'll need to come up with a better theory than saying the phrase "Law of Nations" is a noun. It's not. And again, not all nouns in the Constitution are capitalized. You'll have to stop repeating that talking point as well.
You keep misstating my argument. I never said that "Law of Nations" is a noun; I said that "Law" is a noun and "Nations" is a noun. Nearly every noun in the Constitution is capitalized, with very, very few exceptions (you don't point to any). And you cannot explain why "Piracies," "Felonies" and "Seas" are capitalized, if the capitalization of "Law of Nations" is supposed to be a reference to a specific book as opposed to a body of law.
BTW, there is no dispute that Vattel was an influence on the Constitution, but hardly the only one; Blackstone, who had a very different view of what "natural born" meant, was an even greater influence.
I surmise that if Romney’s parents were declared naturalized citizens before Mitt was born and Mitt was born on USA soil, he is a NBC. I’m no fan of Mitt.
You stated, in post #20 above to another's post that Law of Nations is capitalized...
"So are "Piracies" and "Felonies." In fact, almost all nouns are capitalized in the Constitution-- that was 18th century style.Why would you say something like that, if you didn't think "Law of Nations" was a noun? Again, if you don't think the phrase is a noun...then you must believe that that phrase is actually two separate parts. According to you, THAT means that the text from the Constitution:
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;really means that Congress has the power to define and punish Offenses against the Law
and to define and punish Offenses against Nations.
Clearly, "Law of Nations" is meant to be one Phrase...NOT two individual nouns like you profess.
Furthermore, you stated in #23 that "all the nouns are capitalized" Again, that's simply not true and you know it so to state that doesn't help your cause. As for "pointing" a none capitalized noun out to you...I'll point one of a number of them out. Do a search for the word "day."
I've not read as to why "Piracies," "Felonies" and "Seas" are capitalized, but I believe they were so because they are of significant importance to the context of "Law of Nations" which is all part of the same sentence. Context.
You, apparently, believe they are capitalized based on the sole reason that they are simply nouns. However, why then, are some nouns NOT capitalized? Your reason is inconsistent.
BTW, there's evidence that Vattel was just as important to the framers, arguable more so than Blackstone. One example, in Kent's Commentaries on American Law (1836), he references "Blackstone" 7 times whereas he references "Vattel" 67 times.
I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising State make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly, that copy which I kept (after depositing one in our own public library here, and sending the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed) has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author. Your manuscript "Idée sur le Gouvernement et la Royauté," is also well relished, and may, in time, have its effect. I thank you, likewise, for the other smaller pieces which accompanied Vattel. "Le court Exposé de ce qui est passé entre la Cour Britanique et les Colonies," etc., being a very concise and clear statement of facts, will be reprinted here for the use of our new friends in Canada.http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field%28DOCID+@lit%28dc00211%29%29
Franklin clearly refers to Vattel's "Law of Nations" legal treatise in all lower case, YET, Vattel's other book is capitalized.
Therefore, an argument from the above letter can be made that "law of nations" clearly equals "Law of Nations" = Vattel.
The point here, is that I'm saying it's a possibility that the framers were referring to Vattel's "Law of Nations" in the Constitution....while you are saying that it's 100%, impossible they are while offering up only your opinion for proof of that absolute even after you've been proven clearly wrong on at least one account (re: "Look at any article of the constitution-- all the nouns are capitalized" in post #23).
"New students of the Constitution often see one more thing that raises eyebrows: the use of capital letters in the original text. Some have even gone so far as to say that capitalized words in the original Constitution have some sort of special significance above and beyond the non-capitalized words. This is only true in that most of the non-standard capitalization is done to nouns. Again, this was an issue of style, and is similar to the way German capitalizes nouns they are simply capitalized, and that's all. The words "People" and "State" have the exact same significance and meaning as "people" and "state". Many modern transcriptions of the Constitution remove this extra capitalization without changing the meaning of the document."
The phrase "law of nations" was the 18th century phrase for what we today call "international law." Vattel was one writer on international law, and was certainly influential on the Founders on that topic. On issues of domestic law, common law writers such as Coke and Blackstone were far more influential.
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.