Posted on 11/19/2010 2:03:36 PM PST by bushpilot1
I’m sure you are very proud of your spamming, but you continue to be absolutely clueless. “Law of Nations” does NOT refer to Vattel’s book, but to widely accepted INTERNATIONAL law. Vattel’s book was one of many written on the subject, and no Founder thought every phrase in Vattel was in any way binding on US law.
Widely recognized legal thought in other nations - how to treat prisoners of war, for example - can be binding on the USA. However, the courts usually have recognized that there is very little of it that binds, because it is so subjective - a judge can find a law somewhere supporting anything they want it to, which is why Ginsberg LOVES ‘the law of nations’, and why conservatives do not.
Also, you can save a lot of space by using the text function in Google books.
Yes, it provide a system but not the laws itself. LoL.
From BP1's post above 64--
"A special role in the early American Republic was reserved for Emer de Vattel. Vattel was, of course, most famous for his masterful work contained in The Law of Nations. This volume is a comprehensive ode to natural law, comprising many books and chapters dealing with an array of topics spanning everything from the definition of sovereignty to most intricate detail of international customs and their origins. "
But Vattel isn’t in the Constitution. Sorry. The ‘law of nations’ referred to in the Constitution is not his book, but commonly accepted international law.
Meanwhile, if you want to know the meaning of the phrase ‘natural born citizen’, you need to look to English common law, which provided the legal language used in the Constitution.
American common law heritage or the "legal language" comes from English common law but it is not US law. The natural born citizen clause in the US Constitution is a reference to natural law and not English common law.
You can take it from St. George Tucker who was an American historian and he fought in the Revolutionary War against the British in the battles at Guilford Courthouse and Yorktown.
In the Essay of English Law and the American Experience:
"Tucker concluded that only English laws validly received in America originated from the period before the revolution--a period when the Blackstone's Commentaries had little impact. As Tucker portrayed events, the only influence Blackstone's work was entitled to in the post-revolutionary America was to explain that portion of the common law use prior to the American revolution that had not been modified on nullified by the revolution, by state constitutions, or by state legislative action. Tucker was, in effect, cautioning his readers not to view the Commentaries as a statement of American common law - a power reserved to state legislatures and courts by state constitutions. What remained for Tucker to explain was which aspects of English law, as portrayed by Blackstone...."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2630127/posts?page=58#58
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.