Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

States should make President eligibility laws based on the Law of Nations.
The Law of Nations ^ | 1797 | E. Vattel

Posted on 11/19/2010 2:03:36 PM PST by bushpilot1

Several Chief Justices of the US Supreme Court have stated the Law of Nations (Vattel's) is "law of the land" is "imposed on the US" is "municipal law" is "domestic law".

A Founder,signer of the Declaration of Independence, Chief Justice McKean ruled the Law of Nations is municipal law in Pennsalvannia.

The Law of Nations played a vital role in our countrys founding, there is no need for me link the quotes of the Founders, the Judges and Historians on this thread. The information is available in this forum.

This is my suggestion..the state legislatures pass into law all presidential candiates sine qua non to the Law of Nations.

The Constitution states only a natural born citizen can become president. Vattels Law of Nations tells us what a natural born citizen is: Born from two citizen parents.

Suggest the 1797 edition. State legislatures lets get to work.

If Holder sues he will lose. The Law of Nations is Law.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Foreign Affairs; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: certifigate; citizen; naturalborncitizen
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-67 next last
"Natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.

If our country is to survive..we must adhere to this rule.

1 posted on 11/19/2010 2:03:40 PM PST by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1

The United States of America needs to follow our own Constitution. Period.


2 posted on 11/19/2010 2:04:58 PM PST by TommyDale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1
Those would be the treasonous justices who apparently lied when they took the oath of office to persevere, protect, and defend the Constitution of the U.S.

They simply should be impeached.

3 posted on 11/19/2010 2:08:43 PM PST by Jim 0216
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Arthur McGowan; Beckwith; bgill; bitt; butterdezillion; bvw; conservativegramma; Danae; dennisw; ...

NBC Ping


4 posted on 11/19/2010 2:18:52 PM PST by ASA Vet (Natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. De Vattel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim 0216

Anyone who has acted against the Constitution these past two years (I’m being generous) should be exported. If the Constitution is not good for them, then they shouldn’t be in this Country.


5 posted on 11/19/2010 2:23:20 PM PST by 1_Rain_Drop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1

That IS the standard already!


6 posted on 11/19/2010 2:26:36 PM PST by devistate one four (Read the candidate b 4 voting! Kimber CDP II .45 OOHRAH! TET68)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TommyDale

The Congress, Judges and the illegal president are not following the Constitution.

Section 8. Punish offenses against the Law of Nations.


7 posted on 11/19/2010 2:32:50 PM PST by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1

I’m sure there have been numerous accounts of foreigners trying to get on state ballots to run for POTUS. No doubt most were removed.

I would think that anyone running for President that has been removed from the ballot because their records were requested by the Sec. of State could easily sue on the grounds that other candidates like Barack Hussein Obama was not vetted at all.

All you need is fifty illegal aliens or naturalized citizens to apply to get their name on their state’s ballot. If removed, they sue under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. “no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”

Chump change to make a huge change. Change we can believe in. Barry either coughs up his bona fides or is removed from the ballot.

Biggest Scandal, Crisis, Story in American History.


8 posted on 11/19/2010 2:43:41 PM PST by Electric Graffiti (I'm armed and Amish.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1

Agreed, but no need to change any law. It is there.


9 posted on 11/19/2010 2:45:41 PM PST by TommyDale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Electric Graffiti
"I would think that anyone running for President that has been removed from the ballot because their records were requested by the Sec. of State could easily sue on the grounds that other candidates like Barack Hussein Obama was not vetted at all."

Wild thought here.

If everything obama signed and forced into law was nullified then they couldn't sue.

Then again, who would they sue? We The People have no standing when it pertains to the eligibility issue. There is no one responsible for vetting. Them suing will get them as far as it took us. Numerous court cases and no standing.

10 posted on 11/19/2010 2:56:09 PM PST by 1_Rain_Drop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1
When do we get to try them for treason? And how?
If that many judges are corrupt, it's going to be tough to have a trial!

What is the legal way to get rid of these haters of our country as prescribed by the Constitution?

11 posted on 11/19/2010 3:03:21 PM PST by PATRIOT1876 (Language, Borders, Culture, Full employment for those here legally)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1_Rain_Drop

Isn’t the Secratary of State in charge of gathering the relevent information about the candidates running for state and federal offices?

Just one person per state is all that’s needed to apply for the office of the President of the United States. Apply under the Nazi Party USA. Don’t fill out any personal details......when asked for the information, reply that it is discriminatory to ask for personal information unrelated to the office. Like where I was born and such things. If you get bumped from the ballot -—sue the Sec of State. I’m sure the liberal judges heads would explode on appeal because they want foreigners to run.....LMAO.

The stink would certainly rise quickly......If anybody covered the story.


12 posted on 11/19/2010 3:17:18 PM PST by Electric Graffiti (I'm armed and Amish.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Electric Graffiti

Barack Obama had to sign a statement swearing that he was a natural born citizen in order to get on the primary election ballot in Arizona. Here’s a link to a scanned copy of his sworn statement:
http://moniquemonicat.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/arizona-election-nomination-papers-barack-obama-signed-statement-he-is-a-natural-born-citizen2.pdf

Any prosecuting attorney in Arizona could use that Candidate Nomination Paper to launch a Grand Jury investigation with subpoena power. If Barack Hussein Obama II is found not to be a “natural born citizen of the United States” he could be indicted for election fraud which constitutes a “high crime/misdemeanor”


13 posted on 11/19/2010 3:29:19 PM PST by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: jamese777

Along with the DNC officers and state Democratic party officials:

http://www.theobamafile.com/_opinion/DNCFraud.htm


14 posted on 11/19/2010 3:49:22 PM PST by Beckwith (A "natural born citizen" -- two American citizen parents and born in the USA.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1
The framers never intended a quote “national citizenship” to be instituted because that would centralize the power & usurp the sovereign states as England did under feudal law. US citizenship was to be defined according to the sovereign citizenship laws of the states. If you were not a citizen of one of the states, you were an alien and therefore not eligible for "national political citizenship".

And yet at the time of the adoption of the present constitution the sense of nationality had not sufficiently developed to permit the statement of the ultimate and inevitable conclusion, that every citizen of the Union is primarily a citizen of the United States, and not merely of one of the states which compose them. The one particular in which the first confederation rose above the older Teutonic leagues after which it had been patterned was embodied in the new principle of interstate citizenship which it originated. Section one of article four of the articles of confederation provided that, “ The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different states in this Union, the free inhabitants of each of these states, paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several states.&rdquodquo; The substance of that provision was reproduced in section two of article four of the present constitution which provides that, “ The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.” Beyond that point the framers of the more perfect union were not prepared to go. They did not attempt to do more than establish an interstate citizenship to which they imparted the qualities of uniformity and equality by denying to every state the right to discriminate in favor of its own citizens as against those of any other state.

The Origin and Growth of the English Constitution: The making of the ... By Hannis Taylor

http://books.google.com/books?pg=PA75&dq=citizenship+defined&ei=LZzmTM25BamBnAeG-MiTDQ&ct=result&id=5Sw0AAAAIAAJ#v=onepage&q=citizenship%20defined&f=false

History of federal government: from the foundation of the Achaian league to ... By Edward Augustus Freeman

http://books.google.com/books?id=8fvOAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Freeman,+Federal+Government&hl=en&ei=hAfnTM2sC9uLnAfryeXuDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

15 posted on 11/19/2010 3:52:55 PM PST by patlin (Ignorance is Bliss for those who choose to wear rose colored glasses)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Beckwith

Along with the DNC officers and state Democratic party officials:

http://www.theobamafile.com/_opinion/DNCFraud.htm


That’s much less likely in Hawai’i than it is in Arizona. Even with a Republican Governor and a Republican Attorney General, the state of Hawai’i has backed Obama’s eligibility 100% and now Obama’s closest political friend in Hawai’i, Neil Abercrombie is the new Democrat Governor as of December 6th, forget getting any thing useful out of Hawai’i.


16 posted on 11/19/2010 3:55:05 PM PST by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: 1_Rain_Drop

No, just shouldn’t be in office.


17 posted on 11/19/2010 4:34:44 PM PST by Jim 0216
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: jamese777; Beckwith
"forget getting any thing useful out of Hawai’i.

That's an understatement!


18 posted on 11/19/2010 4:35:20 PM PST by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: PATRIOT1876
What is the legal way to get rid of these haters of our country as prescribed by the Constitution?

What we have learned is that, at least in the near term, two to four years, not coincidentally the terms of our U.S. Representatives, we can dramatically change our legislators. The House is still the most important branch of our government. We now realize that federal judges, political appointees, are extensions of the Legislative Branch. We also see the frailty of separation of powers. Supreme Court justices may be able to hide behind the charter of their institution as an appeals court, but if they have violated their oaths, they can be removed. If the Constitutional presidential eligibility requirements are upheld, regardless of when, Obama's two Supreme Court appointments are moot. Kagan certainly knows this, and Sotomayor may as well. Both profess belief in a "living Constitution." But they were not appointed by a President.

I absolutely agree. We must remove them if we can. They are ignoring the Constitution, probably afraid of the power of current group, which has installed a pro-terrorist Attorney General, and to which our field grade military officers, have acquiesced. We have a few with courage, former Congressman, now Georgia Governor, Nathan Deal, who dealt and immediately faced the House Ethics committee, which had dug out his tax return to find some charges with which to bankrupt him.

We'll see who comes clean during the next few months. Justice Thomas was honest about the “evasion” of the Supreme Court. We don't need a “cultural revolution” but we do need a political revolution. The Senators who opened the door to the skilled gangsters in Alaska must all go.
The payoffs to unions in California and Nevada and Alaska must be stopped and those states weaned from payoffs.

The Republican party has shown its colors. There is no reason to fund it. Ruling Class Republicans are beholden to lobbyists. If the parties want to redeem themselves there is a role they can play, and have thus far mostly avoided, in validating our elections. This isn't the place to examine what they can do, but they have the organization to clean out the cesspool more and more overseen by the SEIU and Secretaries of State who are now being shepherded by Soros’ SOS project.

“Make a list” is the mantra. Call it what we will, a public list will put legislators on notice that we are still a government of the people and by the people. November 2 was the beginning. Voter fraud very likely prevented us from owning the Senate as well, but we will have the Senate by 2012.

We need to decide which issues are most important, and make a list of legislators and judges with their major positions available on the Internet while we still can - the FCC is moving to close that loophole to free speech. The Constitution is being ignored. We'll soon see the loss of which provision arouses the public most: 2nd Amendment? 1st Amendment? Article II section 1 was too obscure to raise the concerns of many, providing the cover for the majority who found it easier to ignore presidential eligibility than deal with the certain screams of ‘racist.”

As we slip past 15% ‘official’ unemployment in many of our districts, internal peace will become more of an issue. Our military enlisted salaries are locked at the poverty level upon the recommendation of Andy Stern, former SEIU president - the most frequent vistor to Obama according to published sign-in records. Our government is headed by Socialist/Marxist/Communist union officials. They appear to want internal strife. We must starve them. Their power is now based upon government service - they helped to destroy the productive smokestack industries which were their base. They only consume productivity.

Businesses are fleeing California, even business which appear to still have California headquarters. Arizona, New Mexico, Wyoming, and a few other states will not accept IOU’s for the power they sell to California. California can't sell bonds to float its state employee retirement funds. The teat for the $150k State EPA employees and the tens of thousands of federal agency lawyers and their support staffs will run dry soon, and the fight over scraps will need to run its course. I know and like some of those lawyers, but their jobs are already disappearing. Capitalism will adapt, but we must identify and remove the enablers of parasites. The average salaries of federal employees, even discounting benefits, is about twice the average salaries in the private sector. In a free society that is unsustainable.

That is why the state-run media are so frightened of “Tea Parties.” They first attacked the “Birthers.” Alinsky’s rules are effective. Alinsky’s first rule “Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have,” is worth remembering. Owning the major media has made the far left appear to be much more powerful than they are numerically. We are a majority. Don't believe anything they say and pay attention to what they do. We must starve legislators of our productivity which they live to direct to their patrons, and replace them with patriots.

19 posted on 11/19/2010 5:00:24 PM PST by Spaulding
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1

Would you cite where the Supreme Court has said Vattel’s Law of Nations is the law of the land?


20 posted on 11/19/2010 5:07:36 PM PST by Mr Rogers (When an ass brays, don't reply)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1_Rain_Drop

“.a violation of the law of nations,” citing in this respect Vattel. “Upon the same principle” -to qoute from the argument as reported—”that the infringement of a statute is an indictable offence, though the mode of punishment is not pointed out in the act itself, an offence against the law of nations, while they compose a part of the law of the land, must necessarily be indictable.”

Chief Justice McKean, a man of large political and judicial experience and himself a signer of the Declaration of Independence, stated the trial to be a case of “first impression in the United States”; that it was to be determinded “on the principles of the law of nations, which form a part of the municipal law of Pennsylvania.”

The Catholic Conception of International Law, James Brown Scott; page 99


21 posted on 11/19/2010 5:16:19 PM PST by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

Would you cite where the Supreme Court has said Vattel’s Law of Nations is the law of the land?


When the term “law of nations” isn’t capitalized, it isn’t a reference to Vattel’s book, it’s a reference to public international law which Vattel’s book is named after.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_international_law


22 posted on 11/19/2010 5:33:31 PM PST by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: jamese777

Are you stating..when Law of Nations is in caps it refers to Vattel?


23 posted on 11/19/2010 5:36:22 PM PST by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1

Do you want all of Vattel to be incorporated into U.S. law, or just your interpretation of that one sentence?


24 posted on 11/19/2010 5:47:23 PM PST by Ha Ha Thats Very Logical
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1

Are you stating..when Law of Nations is in caps it refers to Vattel?


Not necessarily.
I’m stating that when it is NOT capitalized it does not refer to the book.

You need context to determine whether capitalized “Law of Nations” is refering to the book by the Swiss international law scholar.


25 posted on 11/19/2010 5:49:46 PM PST by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: jamese777

“jus gentium,” (Latin: “law of nations”), in legal theory, that law which natural reason establishes for all men, as distinguished from jus civile, or the civil law peculiar to one state or people. Roman lawyers and magistrates originally devised jus gentium as a system of equity applying to cases between foreigners and Roman citizens. The concept originated in the Romans’ assumption that any rule of law common to all nations must be fundamentally valid and just. They broadened the concept to refer to any rule that instinctively commended itself to their sense of justice.—Encyclopedia Britannica


26 posted on 11/19/2010 5:56:27 PM PST by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: jamese777

In some cases it refers to Vattel’s Law of Nations. Do you agree?


27 posted on 11/19/2010 5:58:58 PM PST by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: jamese777

The U. S. Constitution, in Article I, authorized Congress to define and punish “Offences against the Law of Nations.

What book is this?


28 posted on 11/19/2010 6:03:17 PM PST by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1
Article I says "To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations." Are you reading that to say that anything listed as an offense in Vattel's book is therefore punishable by Congress? Or are you reading as James Madison explained it?

From Federalist #42

THE second class of powers, lodged in the general government, consists of those which regulate the intercourse with foreign nations, to wit: to make treaties; to send and receive ambassadors, other public ministers, and consuls; to define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations; to regulate foreign commerce, including a power to prohibit, after the year 1808, the importation of slaves, and to lay an intermediate duty of ten dollars per head, as a discouragement to such importations.

29 posted on 11/19/2010 7:36:51 PM PST by sometime lurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1

In some cases it refers to Vattel’s Law of Nations. Do you agree?


Yes, I do agree, especially when the phrase is: “Vattel’s Law of Nations.”
But a sure clue that Vattel is not being referred to is when “law of nations” is not capitalized.


30 posted on 11/19/2010 8:26:43 PM PST by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1

The U. S. Constitution, in Article I, authorized Congress to define and punish “Offences against the Law of Nations.

What book is this?


It’s no book at all.
Nearly every noun was capitalized in the 18th century grammatical style of the original Constitution.

The context of the phrase dictates that the Framers were talking about “jus gentium” in Latin, meaning international law dealing with acts of piracy committed in international waters on the high seas.
Joseph Story, “Commentaries on the Constitution, 1833
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_10s14.html


31 posted on 11/19/2010 8:40:56 PM PST by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: sometime lurker

I am saying..the Law of Nations...referred to in the Constitution and the Federalist you cited is Vattels Law of Nations.

When the Founders, Judges..refer to the law of nations..or Law of Nations you can bet it is Vattel.

One more item..the Law of Nations prevails. It is law of the land.


32 posted on 11/19/2010 8:51:25 PM PST by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1

I am saying..the Law of Nations...referred to in the Constitution and the Federalist you cited is Vattels Law of Nations.

When the Founders, Judges..refer to the law of nations..or Law of Nations you can bet it is Vattel.

One more item..the Law of Nations prevails. It is law of the land.


Unfortunately for your point of view, there is no American case law based on Vattel’s Law of Nations. If the book written by Emer deVattel was the law of the land in the US there would be a body of case law based on it.
There isn’t.
It would have been great for the purposes of legal clarification if someone with legal standing to sue could have tested these issues in a court of law but neither John McCain, Sarah Palin or the Republican National Committee chose to file suit against Obama for being illegally elected.
I’m betting that the Supreme Court would have entertained an appeal on Obama’s eligibility if McCain-Palin and the Republican National Committee were the plaintiffs and if major originalist constitutional attorneys had filed the briefs, people like Ted Olsen or Judge Robert Bork.


33 posted on 11/19/2010 9:03:14 PM PST by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: devistate one four
States need to be bold, and declare it.

This has been wishy washy for far too long.

Let states declare it, Let the Supremes shoot it down if they dare.

I think its a good idea.

34 posted on 11/19/2010 10:10:11 PM PST by PA-RIVER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Beckwith

I don’t think the same person signed Nancy Pelosi’s name, either. The signature is different between the non-submitted and submitted certification forms.

Maybe the mortgage crisis story about the robosigners plays a role in this somehow...the media claimed that legal liability would fall on those who forged signatures, even with permission - was this a way to keep them quiet?

How about this - Nancy Pelosi signed all 50 non-submitted certification forms. Someone else was asked to forge the signature on the 50 forms that were submitted. These were sent in, of course, with Pelosi’s knowledge. But if the SHTF, the 50 forms with her real signature will be miraculously found.

The president goes down, so does Biden, so do the forgers, and so does the “poor” fall guy who “fooled Pelosi into believing that Obama was qualified.” He’ll be the one who tricked Pelosi into signing the 50 forms “he had no intention of sending” while having a staffer or two forge her signature.

He thinks he has the upper hand, but he won’t be able to prove a thing. She signed the 50 aces in the hole behind his back. He has no idea about the force with which that knife will be plunged in his back.

Why else is Pelosi not worried? /tinfoil off


35 posted on 11/20/2010 1:01:00 AM PST by scott7278 ( "...I have not changed Congress and how it operates the way I would have liked." BHO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: PA-RIVER; Beckwith; Mr Rogers; Spaulding

“prosecutions [were] to be instituted against all persons who shall within the cognizance of the courts of the United States, violate the Law of Nations” George Washington, April 22 1793

Law of Nations, Chapter XIX

The natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens.

Can understand why Washington would be concerned. “ A society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise.”


36 posted on 11/20/2010 1:05:28 PM PST by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1; PA-RIVER; Beckwith; Spaulding

Why do you think everything that has ‘law of nations’ makes you think it refers to Vattel? What lunacy makes you think anything contrary to Vattel is a crime?


37 posted on 11/20/2010 1:38:04 PM PST by Mr Rogers (Poor history is better than good fiction, and anything with lots of horses is better still)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers; PA-RIVER; Beckwith; Spaulding; Red Steel

Thomas Jefferson as Secretary of State wrote a letter to US Attorney William Rawle to apprehend and prosecute US citizens who violate the Law of Nations.

Jefferson believed the Law of Nations was part of the law of the land...rules every citizen must obey.

US Attorney General Lee in 1797, “The Law of Nations in its fullest extent is part of the law of the land.”

There are so many I could list who said the Law of Nations is a part of our laws or law of the land.

There is a big cover up going on.


38 posted on 11/20/2010 2:00:01 PM PST by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1
the Law of Nations...referred to in the Constitution and the Federalist you cited is Vattels Law of Nations.

Except that the full context makes it clear it is not. Reread the quote above (29) or follow the link: James Madison, father of the Constitution, makes it clear in the quote that it refers to relations with foreign powers.

Futher, toward the end of my quote, he does not capitalize "law of nations." The phrase "law of nations" dates back at least to ancient Roman times. The phrase was not unique to De Vattel, in the same way the title "Tort Law" might be used by several authors.

39 posted on 11/20/2010 2:12:19 PM PST by sometime lurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers; Beckwith; Spaulding; PA-RIVER

“Why do you think everything that has ‘law of nations’ makes you think it refers to Vattel? What lunacy makes you think anything contrary to Vattel is a crime?”

Tell that to the Supremes (2003) who referred to Vattel 6 times in Sosa v Alvarez, 542 U.S. 692, 729-30. “For two centuries we have affirmed that the domestic law of the United States recognizes the Law of Nations”

Law of Nations Chapter XIX

The natural born citizens are those born from citizens parents. A society cannot perpetuate other wise. A society should desire this.


40 posted on 11/20/2010 2:15:42 PM PST by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1
Tell that to the Supremes (2003) who referred to Vattel 6 times in Sosa v Alvarez,

They refer to Blackstone (Common Law) 14 times. Also, while you capitalize "law of nations," checking the original quote, it is not capitalized.

41 posted on 11/20/2010 2:27:36 PM PST by sometime lurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: sometime lurker

The offense clause..(offense against the Law of Nations) was added to Section 8 as a result of the Longchamps trial in 1784.


42 posted on 11/20/2010 2:29:36 PM PST by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1

I can’t find that with law of nations capitalized in the online decision I’ve found. Please link or cite.


43 posted on 11/20/2010 2:34:17 PM PST by sometime lurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: sometime lurker

Jefferson said we should not pay much attention to Blackstone.


44 posted on 11/20/2010 2:34:47 PM PST by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1

I notice that you haven’t linked or cited, and that when I present evidence, such as Madison’s quote (linked for your convenience), you ignore it or assert it means something different from what the context clearly says. Why is that?


45 posted on 11/20/2010 2:41:29 PM PST by sometime lurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: sometime lurker; Red Steel

1779 resolution of Continental Congress the Law of Nations will be strictly observed.

In the District of New York 4 April 1790 Chief Justice John Jay to the grand jury “ we are responsible to others for the observance of the Law of Nations”


46 posted on 11/20/2010 2:54:13 PM PST by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1
"The Founders uniformly expected that the customary law of nations, like treaties, was binding, was supreme law, created private and governmental rights and duties, and would be applicable in U.S. federal courts.

4 At the time of the formation of the Constitution, John Jay had written: “Under the national government...the laws of nations, will always be expounded in one sense...[and there is] wisdom...in committing such questions to the jurisdiction and judgment of courts appointed by and responsible only to one national government....

-snip-

In 1793, then Chief Justice Jay recognized that “the laws of the United States,” the same phrase found in Article III, § 2, cl. 1 and in Article VI, cl. 2 of the Constitution, includes the customary “law of nations” and that such law was directly incorporable for the purpose of criminal sanctions.7

That same year it was affirmed that the “law of nations is part of the law of the United States.”8 Chief Justice Jay had also charged a grand jury in Virginia that year in markedly familiar words: “The Constitution, the statutes of Congress, the law of nations, and treaties constitutionally made compose the laws of the United States”9"

-snip-

"Talbot v. Jansen, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 133, 159-61 (1795) (Iredell, J.). See also 1 Op. Att’y Gen. 566, 570-71 (1822) (law of nations is part of “the laws of the country” and “our laws”)."


-snip-

"The judicial power to identify, clarify and apply customary international law has a constitutional base. Under Article III, § 2, cl. 1 of the Constitution, not only might matters involving customary international law arise under other parts of the Constitution as such or treaties, but they can also arise as and under the phrase “the Laws of the United States.” As recognized by the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, this same phrase, “the laws of the United States,” includes the customary “law of nations.” Henfield’s Case, 11 F. Cas. 1099,"


http://washingtonpost.findlaw.com/supreme_court/briefs/03-1027/03-1027.mer.ami.intlawprofs.pdf

47 posted on 11/20/2010 3:18:17 PM PST by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1
Meaning we should observe a book? Because if you claim it means De Vattel's book as opposed to international law by treaties, etc., it would mean we should watch the book. Note that he doesn't say we should be guided by the book, or accept portions of the book, etc. And there are parts of De Vattel would be illegal in the United States both then and now. So I don't buy it.

If you read the context, it sounds more like Madison's quote - clearly referring to international law and treaties as an analogy to developing domestic law.

We had become a nation. As such we were responsible to others for the observance of the Laws of Nations; and as our national concerns were to be regulated by national laws, national tribunals became necessary for the interpretation and execution of them both. No tribunals of the like kind and extent had heretofore existed in this country. From such, therefore, no light of experience nor facilities of usage and habit were to be derived. Our jurisprudence varied in almost every State, and was accommodated to local, not general convenience; to partial, not national policy. This convenience and this policy were nevertheless to be regarded and tenderly treated. A judicial control, general and final, was indispensable; the manner of establishing it with powers neither too extensive nor too limited, rendering it properly independent, and yet properly amenable, involved questions of no little intricacy. The expediency of carrying justice, as it were, to every man's door, was obvious; but how to do it in an expedient manner was far from being apparent. To provide against discord between national and State jurisdictions, to render them auxiliary instead of hostile to each other, and so to connect both as to leave each sufficiently independent, and yet sufficiently combined, was and will be arduous. Institutions formed under such circumstances should therefore be received with candor and tried with temper and prudence. It was under these embarrassing circumstances that the articles in the Constitution on this subject, as well as the act of Congress for establishing the judicial courts of the United States were made and passed. Under the authority of that act, this court now sits. Its jurisdiction is twofold, civil and criminal. To the exercise of the latter you, gentlemen, are necessary, and for that purpose are now convened.[25]

That's it for this afternoon, on to other tasks.

48 posted on 11/20/2010 3:18:55 PM PST by sometime lurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel; rxsid

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1485703


49 posted on 11/20/2010 3:46:16 PM PST by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: sometime lurker; bushpilot1
We don't see anywhere in the US Constitution that English common law is the supreme law of the land, and English common law is not international law.

"A country which uses common law has a legal system based primarily upon past judicial opinions. [Past judicial opinions based on US judicial opinions] These judicial opinions are interpretations of legislation, which are considered more as a guide than as literal requirements such as under civil law. [And not English Common law]

Thus, common law systems acquire their laws over time and may have their laws altered by single rulings. This practice allows for a more flexible and expeditious legal system bypassing the often reluctant and slow-moving legislative system.

Because it was developed in England, modern examples of countries which use common law are typically former English colonies such as Australia, India, Canada, and the United States. "

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_the_differences_between_civil_law_and_common_law

As I've said many times before our common law heritage is passed on from England-- that doesn't mean we adopted their laws, on the contrary. The law of nations that de Vattel ,who was the authority of law of nations, compiled those law of nations in his book, which is reflected in our US Constitution.

50 posted on 11/20/2010 3:48:27 PM PST by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-67 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson