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.
They refer to Blackstone (Common Law) 14 times. Also, while you capitalize "law of nations," checking the original quote, it is not capitalized.
The offense clause..(offense against the Law of Nations) was added to Section 8 as a result of the Longchamps trial in 1784.
I can’t find that with law of nations capitalized in the online decision I’ve found. Please link or cite.
Jefferson said we should not pay much attention to Blackstone.
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?
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”
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
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.
"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.
And you STILL stupidly insist law of nations means every word Vattel wrote, in spite of being corrected multiple times.
The case you cite says, “Several reasons argue for great caution in adapting the law of nations to private rights. First, the prevailing conception of the common law has changed since 1790. When §1350 was enacted, the accepted conception was that the common law was found or discovered, but now it is understood, in most cases where a court is asked to state or formulate a common law principle in a new context, as made or created. Hence, a judge deciding in reliance on an international norm will find a substantial element of discretionary judgment in the decision.”
http://supreme.justia.com/us/542/692/case.html
You will note they are discussing, not Vattel, but the evolving ‘law of nations’ as widely accepted laws in the international arena. And that is NOT what any conservative wants us to follow!
The ‘law of nations’ refers to commonly accepted international law. In referring to it, the Supreme Court said, “Hence, a judge deciding in reliance on an international norm will find a substantial element of discretionary judgment in the decision.” (See post above).
Conservatives do NOT want judges looking to the ‘law of nations’! Ginsberg likes the idea, ‘tho...
You think English law is the law of the land. LoL!
No, I think what the Supreme Court has said: English common law provided the language of law used by lawyers when the Constitution was written. Sorry you don’t understand the difference.
No Ms. Rogers it is you who never does.
Great answer!
Persons: Natural, Functional, or Ethical Kind?
John P. Lizza
Kutztown University
American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Vol. 66, No. 1, pp. 195-216, January 2007
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.