Posted on 09/16/2011 5:56:50 PM PDT by Seizethecarp
Pretend?
As usual, you confuse Vattel with the Law of Nations.
The Law of Nations is INTERNATIONAL LAW. It is the commonly accepted practices of various nations in their laws. It is NOT Vattel.
Vattel wrote about the Law of Nations, but his views on citizenship were shaped by Switzerland, that even now denies citizenship by birth:
“Swiss citizenship is propagated by Jus sanguinis. A person is a Swiss citizen at birth (whether born in Switzerland or not) if he or she is:
born to a Swiss father or mother, if parents are married
born to a Swiss mother, if parents are not married
Where parents marry after birth and only the father is Swiss, the child acquires Swiss citizenship at that point.
There are exceptions if only the mother is Swiss and she acquired Swiss citizenship on the basis of a previous marriage to a Swiss citizen.
Jus soli does not exist in Switzerland, hence birth in Switzerland in itself does not confer Swiss citizenship on the child.”
That is not and has never been US law.
“Justice Daniel directly quoted and referenced Vattel, citing chapter 19 and page 101...”
Yes, the Dred Scott decision, denying citizenship to slaves:
“The United States Supreme Court ruled seven to two against Scott, finding that neither he, nor any person of African ancestry, could claim citizenship in the United States, and therefore Scott could not bring suit in federal court under diversity of citizenship rules...President Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, and the post-Civil war Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth amendments nullified the decision.”
“The Court held that Scott was not a “citizen of a state” and therefore was unable to bring suit in federal court. Taney spent pages 407-421 of his decision chronicling the history of slave and negro law in the British colonies and American states. His goal was to ascertain whether, at the time the Constitution was ratified, federal law could have recognized Scott (a current slave) as a citizen of any state within the meaning of Article III...”
He quotes Vattel in a review of the Law of Nations - how other nations have viewed things. The sentence before your quote says:
“But beyond this, there is not, it is believed, to be found in the theories of writers on Government or in any actual experiment heretofore tried, an exposition of the term citizen which has not been understood as conferring the actual possession and enjoyment, or the perfect right of acquisition and enjoyment, of an entire equality of privileges, civil and political.”
“in the theories of writers on Government”
Not, “Under US law”, but “in the theories of writers on Government”. He concludes, from Vattel:
“From the views here expressed, and they seem to be unexceptionable, it must follow that, with the slave, with one devoid of rights or capacities, civil or political, there could be no pact that one thus situated could be no party to or actor in, the association of those possessing free will, power, discretion. He could form no part of the design, no constituent ingredient or portion of a society based upon common, that is, upon equal interests and powers. He could not at the same time be the sovereign and the slave.”
But he is, in that section, discussing the laws of other nations, not specifically US Law.
If you have any doubts, consider: “The natives or natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.”
Has that ever been US law? Has a native required US citizen parents? Does citizenship - which is what Vattel was writing about - require citizen parents?
In Switzerland, the answer is yes. In the US, the answer is no.
And, again, the phrase ‘natural born citizen’ was never written by Vattel. It first appeared in an edition of Vattel published 10 years AFTER the Constitution. It is likely Justice Daniels didn’t know that - but then, he wasn’t exploring the meaning of NBC. He was looking to see if any other nation considered slaves to be citizens...
No, I’m not a lawyer. However, there are many times in the 1800s and 1900s when natural-born is used interchangeably with native born.
“As the President is required to be a native citizen of the United States…. Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States.”
James Kent, COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW (1826)
“Before our Revolution, all free persons born within the dominions of the King of Great Britain, whatever their color or complexion, were native-born British subjects; those born out of his allegiance were aliens. . . . Upon the Revolution, no other change took place in the law of North Carolina than was consequent upon the transition from a colony dependent on an European King to a free and sovereign State; . The term ‘citizen,’ as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term ’subject’ in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government.
State v. Manuel, 4 Dev. & Bat. 20, 24-26 (1838)
The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not. ”
Lynch vs. Clarke (NY 1844)
in order to be President of the United States, a person must be a native-born citizen. It is the common law of this country, and of all countries, and it was unnecessary to incorporate it in the Constitution, that a person is a citizen of the country in which he is born….
Sen. Trumbull (author or the Civil Rights Act of 1866), April 11, 1871, Cong. Globe. 1st Session, 42nd Congress, pt. 1, pg. 575 (1872)
“Native: A natural-born subject or citizen; a citizen by birth; one who owes his domicile or citizenship to the fact of his birth within the country referred to.”
Black’s Law Dictionary 6th Addition (1994).
And Sheriff Joe will tell Holder “bring it on, Jr.”.....
Chief Justice Fuller disagrees with your statement regarding Vattel and the Law of Nations..
“Before the Revolution, the views of the publicists had been thus put by Vattel: “The natives, or 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”
Correct!
The pdf in evidence has been sworn to have been forged by “20 experts” accumulated by Corsi and their statements have been provided to Arpaio who can impanel a grand jury, if the posse agrees.
This forgery alone would be a felony, but establishing such a felony did not require access to the original, according the the experts. Obama’s team could be convicted of this forgery without any discovery being ordered or obtained from HI DOH.
Note that Obama’s legal team went to great lengths to firewall Obama away from the pdf including making sure that he was not holding the “actual” stamped, impressed paper copy “obtained from HI DOH” when Obama addressed the WH press. If Obama's underlings are convicted of forging his BC based on this evidence it is not clear that a federal court could "reach" the NBC issue.
Of course, “best evidence” and the most exculpatory evidence for Obama and any potential forgers on his team that the document is genuine would be for the Obama legal team to allow discovery of the HI LFBC! This will not happen. Will the MSM and increasingly discontented Democrats (Time to Panic!) continue to pretend that any honest ethical public servant would withhold legal discovery of his or her BC to avoid “even the appearance” of impropriety???
Chief Justice Fuller quoting Vattel..
“The true bond which connects the child with the body politic is not the matter of an inanimate piece of land, but the moral relations of his parentage..”
US law has never required citizen parents if someone is born here. Parentage only is important if born outside the USA.
Swiss law is different, and Vattel wrote from a Swiss perspective. It has never been true of US law.
You disagree? Sue the State Department for issuing passports without checking parentage.
“Chief Justice Fuller disagrees with your statement regarding Vattel and the Law of Nations..”
You do realize your quote comes from the DISSENT, don’t you? That is the LOSING side of the argument. It is what the decision of the Supreme Court REJECTED.
He did, however, understand what the decision meant, complaining:
“Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution, I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that “natural-born citizen” applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances, and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the Presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not.”
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZD.html
“Webster means Vattel’s law of nations.”
Only if you are an idiot. Many people have written on the Law of Nations. Vattel was only one. When Webster wrote about the Law of Nations, he was not limiting that phrase to one book of many.
Sorry, but only in bushpilotland & WorldNutDaily is Vattel the final authority on all things.
Now, YOU try reading it. Please show where Webster specified that Vattel’s book on the Law of Nations was supreme over anything.
The Law of Nations is not a phrase that means “Vattel’s book”, any more than it is a phrase that means Samuel Pufendorf’s “Of the law of nature and nations”...
Pls tell us Mr Rogers why is the Supreme Court citing Vattel in Virginia v Tennessee if Vattel’s Law of Nations is limited to Swiss law?
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10388199763957366456&q=++vattel&hl=en&as_sdt=2003
Pls tell us Mr Rogers why is the Supreme Court citing Vattel’s Law of Nations in:
ISAAC R. SMITH, OWNER OF THE SLOOP VOLANT, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
THE STATE OF MARYLAND.
Mr Smith is a US citizen and we assume Maryland was a part of the United States in 1855. Was Maryland a Swiss province?
The ship was not sailing on Lake Lucerne in Switzerland.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14399056036206716338&q=++vattel&hl=en&as_sdt=2003
Nebraska and Iowa must be Swiss provinces...who would have thunk it..yes our Mr Rogers..who stated Vattel’s Law of Nations is Swiss Law.
NEBRASKA
v.
IOWA.
No. 4. Original.
Supreme Court of United States.
Argued January 29, 1892.
Decided February 29, 1892.
“Vattel states the rule thus:”
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1045039018075351674&q=++vattel&hl=en&as_sdt=2003
Cincinnati must be a Swiss city and Louisville $ Nashville Railroad must be a Swiss company.
223 U.S. 390 (1912)
CITY OF CINCINNATI
v.
LOUISVILLE & NASHVILLE RAILROAD CO.
No. 385.
Supreme Court of United States.
Submitted January 9, 1912.
Decided February 19, 1912.
“Vattel defines......”
Your comment makes no sense. He raised $778m in the 2008 election. That's way more than stinkin' public funding would have provided. A Chicago pol would never opt for the lower number when it comes to campaign cash.
He got rich and famous on the strength of a book celebrating the fact that Obama, Sr. was his real father. Everyone knew it before the election.
Including John Roberts, above, who knows a bit more about the Constitution than do you.
And when exactly did Roberts rule on Obama’s eligibility? You obviously have never taken the steps necessary to elevate the discussion here.
May something SUBSTANTIAL come of this investigation.
Given the above, how do you think he will rule, if he ever gets the chance?
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.