Newsweek Insults Barack Obama As an ‘Anchor Baby’

obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com ^ | 9/3/2010 | Brent Baker

[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 week’s Newsweek listed “BARACK OBAMA (Kenyan Father)” on the page headlined: “What’s So Scary About an ‘Anchor Baby’?” The brief text below the headline, and on top of the diaper, made clear the magazine’s attempt to undermine those suggesting citizenship should no longer be automatically conferred on anyone born within the United States:

•There’s 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 Arizona’s 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 Obama’s 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."

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2010/09/newsweek-magazine-barack-obama-kenyan.html

[majormaturity]

This is an excellent dissertation. I suggest we start a movement to send copies of this article to every Supreme Court justice. If tens of thousands of citizens (real ones, that is) sent this over and over again, do you think they would begin to sense that maybe the American people are demanding justice/ the man is clearly ineligible to serve as President...

[rxsid]

"Law of Nations is capitalized, like one would do when citing a Book.

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?

[Lurking Libertarian]

Because "of" is a preposition, not a noun. Look at any article of the constitution-- all the nouns are capitalized.

Seriously, do you think the Constitution gave Congress the power to criminalize violations of Vattel's book?

[rxsid]

Seriously, not his "book", but what he write about. As in, the contents. It's possible, as they used what he wrote about (the contents) to help them raise a nation.

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."199

http://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.

[rxsid]

wrote about.

[Lurking Libertarian]

“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.

[rxsid]

Then what you are arguing is that "Law" and then "of" and then "Nations" are in fact 3 separate and independent items.

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 what?

Against the Law? The Law of What? Just the Law? Who's Law?

Clearly...

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.

[Lurking Libertarian]

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.

[rxsid]

Your statement that "all nouns in the Constitution are capitalized", is simply false as some nouns are not capitalized.

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.

[Lurking Libertarian]

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.

[Lurking Libertarian]

Another point: this clause of the Constitution is discussed in Federalist #42, which does not capitalize the term "law of nations" and does not mention Vattel.

[noinfringers2]

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.

[rxsid]

You've clearly not paid attention to my postings, which I know you read based on you commenting on numerous threads I post. If you had paid attention, you would clearly see that I acknowledge up front, that Vattel isn't the exclusive source to the founding of the country. Don't be ridiculous in making that assertion.

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.

[rxsid]

Your point is a weak one at best, when compared to Dr. Franklins letter (for one example):

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).

[Lurking Libertarian]

That nouns in the Constitution are capitalized is obvious to anyone who reads it. As Constitution.net puts it:

"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.