Posted on 01/13/2011 2:23:49 PM PST by bushpilot1
(Excerpt) Read more at google.com ...
Oops. nation not nations.
This document is over 100 years old and confusing according to the MSM, so it is null and void like the ‘Konstitushun’
It doesn’t matter what the constitution says. It’s out of date. Nor doesn’t it matter what the founding fathers said. This is what liberals BELEIVE.
I’m almost to the point of filing complaints against every liberal I know who owns a gun. We know they’re nuts.
Here is a sample:
The phrase "Law of Nations" is a direct translation of the Latin jus gentium, which means the underlying principles of right and justice among nations, and during the founding era was not considered the same as the "laws", that is, the body of treaties and conventions between nations, the jus inter gentes, which, combined with jus gentium, comprise "international law". The distinction goes back to Roman Law.
Briefly, the Law of Nations at the point of ratification in 1789 included the following general elements, and prosecution of those who might violate them:
(1) No attacks on foreign nations, their citizens, or shipping, without either a declaration of war or letters of marque and reprisal.
(2) Honoring of the flag of truce, peace treaties, and boundary treaties. No entry across national borders without permission of national authorities.
(3) Protection of wrecked ships, their passengers and crew, and their cargo, from depredation by those who might find them.
(4) Prosecution of piracy by whomever might be able to capture the pirates, even if those making the capture or their nations had not been victims.
(5) Care and decent treatment of prisoners of war.
(6) Protection of foreign embassies, ambassadors, and diplomats, and of foreign ships and their passengers, crew, and cargo while in domestic waters or in port.
(7) Honoring of extradition treaties for criminals who committed crimes in a nation with whom one has such a treaty who escape to one's territory or are found on the high seas.
Source
What you are doing is using what you take to be a principle of the Law of Nations to explain a phrase of the Constitution. Assume for a minute that your interpretation is valid -- it isn't (and it isn't really a principle of the Law of Nations, either) -- but if it were valid, someone who wasn't a "natural born citizen" and presumed to be president would be in violation of the Constitution, not the Law of Nations, because the Law of Nations doesn't say anywhere that such a person is ineligible.
If you are one of those people who gets irate at the thought of federal courts using foreign law to resolve US legal cases -- and that's certainly something to get irate about -- you might be a little hesitant about celebrating the use of what you take to be the Law of Nations in resolving matters like this.
Now, if you find that Obama has been engaging in piracy -- go for it!
Now, if you find that Obama has been engaging in piracy — go for it!
What is the purpose of the multiple social security numbers identified with Obama, philanthropy? I wouldn’t be surprised if they were not part of and perhaps even continuing to be part of the Obama financial enrichment program.
Your post is nonsense.
“The law of nations forms an integral part of the common law, and a review of the history surrounding the adoption of the Constitution demonstrates that it became a part of the common law of the United States upon the adoption of the Constitution.” Filartiga v. Pena-Irala, 630 F. 2d 876 - Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit 1980
Dickenson, “The Law of Nations as Part of the National Law of the United States,” 101 U.Pa.L.Rev. 26, 27 (1952).
“The plainest evidence that international law has an existence in the federal courts independent of acts of Congress is the long-standing rule of construction first enunciated by Chief Justice Marshall: “an act of congress ought never to be construed to violate the law of nations, if any other possible construction remains ....” The Charming Betsy, 6 U.S. (2 Cranch), 34, 67, 2 L.Ed. 208 (1804), quoted in Lauritzen v. Larsen, 345 U.S. 571, 578, 73 S.Ct. 921, 926, 97 L.Ed. 1254 (1953).
The term is defined in the Law of Nations, which we know the founding fathers had access to. So in the absence of any competing definitions, it's logical to assume that the Founding Fathers meant the term as defined by the Law of Nations.
That's a big difference from using foreign laws decide US law in contradiction to US law or tradition.
Be careful when you used quotes from various sources without knowing the context. This case was about aliens in the US and foreign suits. The reference to the LONs forming an integral part of the Constitution refers to our interface with other nations. Particularly in this was the legality of the enactment of the Alien Tort Statute. Here is the full paragraph:
Recalling that Mostyn was freshly decided at the time the Constitution was ratified, we proceed to consider whether the First Congress acted constitutionally in vesting jurisdiction over "foreign suits," Slater, supra, 194 U.S. at 124, 24 S. Ct. at 582, alleging torts committed in violation of the law of nations. A case properly "aris(es) under the ... laws of the United States" for Article III purposes if grounded upon statutes enacted by Congress or upon the common law of the United States. See Illinois v. City of Milwaukee, 406 U.S. 91, 99-100, 92 S. Ct. 1385, 1390-91, 31 L. Ed. 2d 712 (1972); Ivy Broadcasting Co., Inc. v. American Tel. & Tel. Co., 391 F.2d 486, 492 (2d Cir. 1968). The law of nations forms an integral part of the common law, and a review of the history surrounding the adoption of the Constitution demonstrates that it became a part of the common law of the United States upon the adoption of the Constitution. Therefore, the enactment of the Alien Tort Statute was authorized by Article III.
If you were running a scam, would you really run it in such a way that somebody searching for social security numbers would be able to uncover it so easily? There may be a scam on someone’s part involved, but if you were serious about making illegal money would you really make it so easy for the scam to be traced back to you?
“When the United States declared their independence, they were bound to receive the law of nations, in its modern state of purity and refinement.” Ware v. Hylton, 3 Dall. 199, 281 (1796) (Wilson, J.).”
“For two centuries we have affirmed that the domestic law of the United States recognizes the law of nations” Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 US 692 - Supreme Court 2004
Since Dickinson was mispelled it was easy to track down your source. Reading the next paragraph:
"Indeed, Dickenson goes on to demostrate ... that one of the principal defects of the Confederation that our Constitution was intended to remedy was the central governement's inability to "cause infractions of treaties or of the law of nations, to be punished."
Again, not that this is about our federal powers inrespect to how we treat foreign entities.
Vattel's wasn't the only or the most important definition of "natural born citizen" in 18th century America. Blackstone's interpretation of that phrase was different and most likely more common at the time. Put Vattel's book and Blackstone's before a court and Blackstone would almost surely convince the judges.
That's a big difference from using foreign laws decide US law in contradiction to US law or tradition.
In so far as Vattel reflected a continental, rather than a common law Anglo-American conception of citizenship, it's not so very different from using other examples of foreign law to determine US cases.
ummm. Again this is an international law case. I would cite it further but I am getting a little bored with you cutting and pasting from birther websites without knowing what you are pasting.
The Constitution gives Congress the right to "To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations".
As one poster on the other thread commented, "Do people really think this passage gives Congress power to punish offenses against a work by a Swiss philosopher?"
The Constitution gives Congress the right to “To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas’
and offenses against the law of nations”.
Punish piracies and felonies on the high seas is a different issue.
The Constitution gives Congress the right to define and punish offenses against the Law of Nations.
“The Peterhoff, 5 Wall. 28, 57: “In cases such as that now in judgment, we administer the public law of nations, and are not at liberty to inquire what is for the particular advantage or disadvantage of our own or another country.”
Lauritzen v. Larsen, 345 US 571 - Supreme Court 1953
“Congress and the President, like the courts, possess no power not derived from the Constitution.”
To define and punish Offences against the Law of Nations,” Art. I, § 8, cl. 10.
The Constitution confers on the President the “executive Power,” Art. II, § 1, cl. 1, and imposes on him the duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” Art. II, § 3.
The Constitution thus invests the President, as Commander in Chief, with the power to wage war which Congress has declared, and to carry into effect all laws passed by Congress for the conduct of war and for the government and regulation of the Armed Forces, and all laws defining and punishing offenses against the Law of Nations.
The USC stated “punishing offenses against the Law of Nations”.. it did not say this was a piracy offense.
ex parte Quirin, 317 US 1 - Supreme Court 1942
In enacting the legislation, Congress relied specifically on its powers to prescribe the jurisdiction of federal courts, Art. I, § 8, cl. 9; to define offenses against the “Law of Nations,”
Verlinden BV v. Central Bank of Nigeria, 461 US 480 - Supreme Court 1983
Nothing mentioned about an “obscure Swiss guy” or piracy.
Nothing mentioned about "natural born citizen" either.
The courts use international law principles to decide international law cases as they use common law principles to decide civil cases.
Whether they would give a foreign legal treatise precedence over American sources in interpreting the Constitution is another matter.
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.