“Every single one of them tried to pretend that in order to “understand” Article II you have to look to Vattel or some other nonsense.”
Which means they support judges using foreign written documents in US courts...of course that statement just made their heads explode because they are always against foreign documents being used in US courts.
“Which means they support judges using foreign written documents in US courts...of course that statement just made their heads explode because they are always against foreign documents being used in US courts.”
That is a false statement and a strawman argument. What is opposed is the citation and usage of precedentcourt decisions and laws that were not the authorities used in U.S. court decision, statutes of law, and the authoring of the U.S. Constitution.b The United States developed its own commmon-law concurrently with the development of Englasih common-law, so the two common-law traditions share in some elements and differ in many more elements. Attempts to make English common-law controlling in U.S. courts of law and the expense of American common-law and U.S. adoption of foreign legal precedents and the Law of nations is invalid to the extent of which English common-law and statutory laws were not relied upon by the United States or were opposite of American laws and principles. The same is true of British legal experience, because there were conflicts within Britain between the Royalists and the Parlimentarians, such as the conflict between the Royalist supporter, John Cowell, and the Parliamentarian, Sir Edward Coke, Chief Justice.
You keep up with putting forth all of these strawman arguments, and you’ll drive up the prices for fodder for the livestock.