Emer de Vattel
Emerich de Vattel, Swiss jurist and philosopher, has been a football in the Obama conspiracy game. One side wants to make him a “nobody” and the other wants to carve his face on Mount Rushmore as an American founder. The truth is in between.
I have written a bit already on Emerich de Vattel including these articles:
- The wit and wisdom of Emerich de Vattel, a look at some of his writings that are very “un-American” .
- De Vattel: revisited. This article discloses the fact that editions of his book, The Law of Nations, didn’t have the phrase “natural born citizen” until after the Constitution was ratified.
- De Vattel for Dummies. This is a general article about the philosopher and his book, The Law of Nations, including its real title.
- The Law of Nations and the Law of the United States. It talks a little about the concept of natural law.
A birther example is that John Jay, first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, cited de Vattel. Jay also referenced other political philosophers: John Locke, Lord Sommers, and Dr. Priestly. De Vattel was one of several philosophers that provided input to the founders of our nation. When we see de Vattel cited by the courts, it is typically on the subject of international law (i.e. “the law of nations”).
Indeed, it is very, very unusual to see Emerich de Vattel cited favorably on the topic of American citizenship. For example, in James Kettner’s 1978 scholarly work, The Development of American Citizenship, 1608-1870, de Vattel is not mentioned a single time mentioned only once and that not in the context of the acquisition of citizenship!
There are four instances that I know of, where de Vattel was cited in regard to the acquisition of American citizenship.
The Smith eligibility debate
The earliest appeared in a letter to the editor of a Charleston, SC newspaper from 1789, on the occasion of the controversy over whether William Smith was eligible to serve in the United States House of Representatives. Smith, defending his eligibility said:
The Doctor [Ramsay] says the circumstances of birth do not make a citizen–This I also deny. Vattel says: “The country of the father is that of the children and these become citizens by their tacit consent.” I was born a Carolinian [before the Declaration], and I defy the Doctor to say at what moment I was disenfranchised. The revolution which took place in America made me a citizen, though then resident at Geneva…. There was never a moment when I was a citizen of any other country.
I might add that Congressman Smith’s father died a British subject, before the American Revolution. In the Congressional debate that ensued, James Madison took up the defense of William Smith saying:
It is an established maxim, that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States.
Lynch v. Clarke
A case arose in New York where the citizenship of an American born child of British parents was questioned. A remarkable and scholarly survey of American citizenship was written in the Chancery Court’s review of the case. Vice-chancellor Sandford included de Vattel’s comments on citizenship in The Law of Nations in his decision. The conclusion of Lynch v. Clarke was that the children of aliens born in the United States are natural born citizens, and even goes so far as to comment that they are eligible to be President! The decision is lengthy and the reader is urged to visit the original.
By the common law, all persons born within the ligeance of the crown of England, were natural born subject, without reference to the status or condition of their parents…
The term citizen, was used in the constitution as a word, the meaning of which was already established and well understood. And the constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle, in the section which defines the qualification of the President. “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,” … 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.
Dred Scott v Sandford (concurring opinion)
Of all the decisions by the United States Supreme Court, perhaps none other can claim to have precipitated the deaths of half a million people. Cited as one of the worst decisions by the court, the case of Dred Scott v Sandford declared that slaves were not citizens, and even if freed could not become citizens by naturalization, nor their offspring by birth.
The citizens are the members of the civil society, bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority; they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.
Dred Scott v Sandford Concurring Opinion by Mr. Justice Daniel
The argument went that freed slaves could not be naturalized, because only persons born overseas could be naturalized. Since they were not citizens, by the preceding citation, neither could their children born in the United States, nor their children’s children. In any case, the 14th Amendment repudiated that decision.
United States v Wong Kim Ark
Emerich de Vattel was not cited by the 6-2 Supreme Court Decision in this case, but it was cited by the dissenting opinion (the losing side). The citation is the same one from Dred Scott above.
we all know that Vattel was a major contributor to our constituion, his signaure is on the Declaration of Independance, the constituion lists him as the founder, his picture is on the bubble gum cards of the day, he covered the invasion at Normandy and he was the first president of Birferstan. Just ask DancingRabid!
This part of Chief Justice Fuller’s is one of my favorites:
“Obviously, where the Constitution deals with common law rights and uses common law phraseology, its language should be read in the light of the common law; but when the question arises as to what constitutes citizenship of the nation, involving as it does international relations, and political, as contradistinguished from civil, status, international principles must be considered, and, unless the municipal law of England appears to have been affirmatively accepted, it cannot be allowed to control in the matter of construction.”
I guess birthers believe that the United Nations should define “natural born” for us.
When someone starts an argument with “obviously” I expect to see the writer begging the question. One of the reasons Dred Scott is such a bad decision is that it misstates the historical record, ignoring the fact that the states themselves did not have any parental requirements for citizenship.
The fact that Vattrel dies NOT endorse the so-called “two parents citizens” notion can never be emphasized too much.
For the sake of exhaustiveness, Doc, you should include the fact that in the second edition [should be 1863 French edition. Doc.], the paragraph about children inheriting their father’s citizenship was footnoted to add that, in the case of children born out of wedlock, then the mother’s citizenship would prevail.
Mario and Kerchner are still plying their flock with faux Vattelism, and they still can’t read worth a damn.
People ought to have a good look at the history of Neuchatel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuch%C3%A2tel
There is a reason why this French-speaking guy had a German Christian name. He was not Swiss, but Prussian.
Only after his death did Neuchatel become a part of Switzerland.
Richcares, you forgot the part where Vattel told his compatriot David Eisenhower to hide Harry Serguey Truman’s birth certificate in a church in Normandy when he was visiting Europe in 1910 – so as to retrieve it when necessary, in June 1944. Only Ike hid it in the Just Judges panel of the Mystic Lamb in Ghent instead.
But wait, didn’t George Washington borrow the Law of Nations from the library? Doesn’t that mean that the founders defined citizenship by de Vattel? Makes perfect sense.
The quote from Dred Scott is not in the majority opinion, only the concurrence of one Justice who was a adamant defender of slavery. The context of the quote by Justice Daniel was the argument that a citizen, by definition, enjoyed “equality of privileges, civil and political” and hence slaves, who were “devoid of rights or capacities, civil or political,” could therefore not be citizens. Thus, Daniel put “equally” in the first sentence of such quote in italics to emphasize it. The “natural born” part was pretty much superfluous to the context of the quote.
Thanks for the correction. I updated the text. In the context of my article, it is not so much what de Vattel said, as to what extent he was valued as an authority.
Guess what? The South Carolina Constitution of 1776 affirmatively adopted the English Common Law.
I agree. I am just tired of birthers claiming Dred Scott supports them.
I noticed a new birther argument the other day (well new to me, you may have already dealt with it), the argument has always been that natural born did not equal native born. But after enough people produced quotes from the founding generation that said a President had to be native born, the argment is now, ‘native born use to equal natural born’ but that has changed.
Here is a comment from someone at Gretawire:
“In addition, Natives and Natural-Born once were inter changeable [sic] in the language of the day. Today, Native means ONLY one born on the soil.” by MrNaturalBorn
http://gretawire.forums.foxnews.com/topic/abdallah-obamas-irrlevant-birth-announcements/page/2?replies=71
By the way, they were talking about Dred Scott on NPR’s Morning Edition program this morning in the context of some wanting to revisit the 14th amendment to make the children of illegal aliens not citizens.
“Goalposts….meet motorized mobility system”
So they are arguing that in the past “native born” meant something other than born in the country. That gets them nowhere. “Natural born” is the phrase in the Constitution, and the language of the Constitution comes from English Common Law (Smith v Alabama).
I don’t understand the argument. They are saying in the founders day they were interchangable but now they are not? So they are not concerned about what the founders thought? Great argument. I suggest they look in a modern dictionary:
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).
Owe, I get it. They are saying that “native” used to be understood to have the Vattel meaning. That was Mario’s lame argument. We then challenged him to find anhyone in America defining “native” in such manner. Of course, he couldn’t. “Native” was clearly defined in the convention itself as it was pointed out that certain foreign born persons could not hold office under a native birth requirement and such a requirement was called a discrimination by place of birth.
“Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction of the United States…. ” James Kent, COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW (1826)
“NATIVES. All persons born within the jurisdiction of the United States, are considered as natives.” Bouvier Law Dictionary (1843)
“NATIVE. [Lat. nativas, born, home born.] In English law. A natural born subject. 1 Bl. Com. 366. In American law. A person born within the jurisdiction of the United States. 2 Kent’s Com. 38.” Alexander Mansfield Burrill, A new law dictionary and glossary, pg 737 (1851)
Which side wants to make him a nobody? I haven’t seen that anywhere, nor heard anyone attempt such.
So if birthers want to make him a savior, and the non-birthers want to make him a non-person (which I don’t believe is fact) , what does that make you, oh above everyone else moderate? Part Birther/Part non-birther?
I don’t think that is an accurate statement. Most non-Birthers recognize that Vattel was influential in discussions of international law. He was widely quoted for how the United States should deal with other countries and especially with regards to treaties. But in the area of citizenship, he is not regarded as an authority. It’s similar to asking a baseball umpire to decide if there was pass interference.
The strange thing about Vattel to me is that, when I took Constitutional Law in law school, my professor somehow managed to go the entire course without ever mentioning his name.
The analogy is probably closer to asked Sheldon from “The Big Bang Theory” about ANY aspect of sport……..
Very strange….my Conlaw professor never mentioned him either. Neither did my International Law prof. Or my comparative Constitutional law prof. Even more interesting…none of the books they used even mentioned him. I had to dig back to my undergrad International Law book to find even a single sentance about him. And that reference was less than flattering, referring to him as a philospher of international law popular in the late 18th early 19 centuries, that has since fallen into disfavor for his internal inconsistencies.
That’s because you went to one of them liberal-communist-Marxist-socialist-Democrat-Maoist-socialist-humanist-progressive law schools.
Vatell is mentioned daily in law classes at the Jimmy Swaggert-Pat Robertson College of Law.
The answer is because, while Vattel did have something to say on the subject, he was not very influential at the time.
It’s kind of like your profs were giving you the top 50 influences on the framing of the constitution, and Vattel is number 51.
The Birfers want to elevate Vattel far beyond his importance, and elevate his musings of what they translate into “natural born” far beyond the importance even he apparently placed on it.
It’s Cherry Picking of the sort that would make even Fred Phelps awestruck.
First up, John C. Eastman, Dean and Donald P. Kennedy Chair in Law at Chapman University and a former clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas:
John C. Eastman | 11:11 a.m.: Although Senator Obama’s teaching position at the University of Chicago Law School overlapped my own time there as a student, I did not have occasion to take one of his classes—I tended to register for the classes of the full-time tenured faculty rather than those taught by adjuncts such as Mr. Obama—but I am not surprised to see the intellectual diversity for which Chicago is famous reflected in then-Professor Obama’s course syllabi and examinations. The syllabus from the 1994 “Current Issues in Racism and the Law” course is particularly instructive. While at many law schools, such courses are frequently taught by critical race theorists who focus largely on one side of a complex legal and policy debate, then-Professor Obama’s course included, quite appropriately in my view, readings from across the ideological spectrum, from Derrick Bell and Malcolm X to Chuck Cooper and Lino Graglia.
I was particularly pleased to see a reading from the classic work by Vattel, one of the leading international law theorists in all of human history, The Law of Nations. What is more, it is evident from the sampling of proposed topics for group presentations contained in the syllabus that this spectrum of authors was included for more than mere exposure. Rather, it appears that then-Professor Obama was leading his students in an honest assessment of competing views regarding some of the most difficult legal and policy issues our nation has ever faced—a refreshing change from what passes for debate about contested questions in our political classes these days. My one criticism of the course is his recommendation that students read Derrick Bell’s summary of some landmark (if notorious) Supreme Court decisions. Cases such as Dred Scott v. Sanford, The Slaughterhouse Cases, and Plessy v. Ferguson, and in particular the strong dissenting opinions in those cases, cry out for careful study of the original materials, not a secondary summary.
Only occasionally do then-Professor Obama’s decidedly personal views come across. He refers to Justice Scalia’s approach to assessing fundamental rights as “cramped,” for example. But on the whole, this is a body of course materials that is as would be expected of Chicago Law Professors.
****
Inside Professor Obama’s Classroom
By JODI KANTOR
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/30/inside-professor-obamas-classroom/
MY comment should have had this quote, not the one from Daniel.
I’m sorry…….
Please explain exactly what your reply had to do with my post?
Acknowledged. Sorry for jumping the gun
In the founding era, when one looked to issues of internation law, it was pretty typical to refer to the writers (plural) on the law of nations. Although Vattel was one of the most popular writers, he was not the only one they looked to. For example, Secretary of State James Madison wrote a paper arguing that England’s blockade violated the law of nations. In his paper, he cited Groties, Purendorf, Bynkershoeck and Martens all at length as well as Vattel. This was pretty typical. Madison was both complimentary and critical of Vattel saying:
“The reputation which Vattel enjoys in Great Britain, greater perhaps than he enjoys any where else, requires that he should be particularly consulted on this subject. The work of Vattel unquestionably possesses great merit; not so much, indeed, for the originality of his plan, or his matter, which he admits to have been derived from Wolf; as for the agreeable dress which he has given to the dry treatise of his prototype, and for the 3d
liberal spirit which has, in many instances, improved the doctrines of all his predecessors. Vattel is, however, justly charged with failing too much in the merit of a careful discrimination; and sometimes with delivering maxims, which he cither could not reconcile, or does not take pains to explain. In the chapter on neutrality (B. Ill, Ch. 7,) he might perhaps have been more exact in his definitions, and more lucid in the order of his ideas. His meaning, nevertheless, is, on the whole, sufficiently clear, and arranges him beyond all controversy, with Grotius, Pufendorf, and Bynkershoeck, in opposition to the doctrine under consideration.”
http://books.google.com/books?id=w9l2AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA234&dq=%22is+not+unjustly+considered,+as+in+some+respects%22&hl=en&ei=3UfHTI_xFIT58AaDpNTHDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=vattel&f=false
I think this is the key. Vattel was popular at the time of the founding but lost popularity over time (possible because some of his writings conflict with the Constitution). The same could be said of William Blackstone, although he never completely disappeared, he fell out of favor in some circles. Except with the evangelical christians and the second amendment “right to bear” arms crowd.
As Jefferson was of Blackstone’s Commentaries. No one author or book completely influenced the founders.
All this does is show that Barack Obama was a good and careful professor who believed that his students should be aware of the historical context of their assigned readings….
The only statement by framers on the “law of nations” in the convention. Called “vague and deficient” and defined by all nations. Of course, the Birthers think this phrase is referring to Vattel’s book specifically. Duh.
“To define & punish piracies and felonies on the high seas, and “punish” offences against the law of nations.
Mr Govr Morris moved to strike out “punish” before the words “offences agst the law of nations,” so as to let these be definable as well as punishable, by virtue of the preceding member of the sentence.
Mr Wilson hoped the alteration would by no means be made. To pretend to define the law of nations which depended on the authority of all the civilized nations of the world, would have a look of arrogance, that would make us ridiculous.
W Govr Morris. The word define is proper when applied to offences in this case; the law of nations being often too vague and deficient to be a rule.
On the question to strike out the word “punish” it passed in the affirmative N. H. ay. Mas. no. O ay. N. J. ay. P? no. Del. ay. Md no. V? no. N. C. ay. S. C. ay. Geo. no.”
http://books.google.com/books?id=Q5dvLssRpY8C&pg=PA372&dq=debates+define+and+punish+law+of+nations&hl=en&ei=XU3HTL-eH8Gp8AbWrrQ0&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCoQ6AEwADgK#v=onepage&q&f=false
I wouldn’t call Vattel a nobody, but I do call him obscure, at least as far as American jurisprudence is concerned. I just took a look at two reference works, THE CAMBRIDGE BIOGRAPHICAL DICTIONARY and BARTLETT’S FAMILIAR QUOTATIONS. There are entries in both books for Blackstone, but nothing about Vattel. Likewise, Professor Lawrence M. Friedman’s highly influential work A HISTORY OF AMERICAN LAW cites Blackstone 15 times, but there is not a single reference to Vattel. In fact, Vattel’s LAW OF NATIONS doesn’t even merit inclusion in Friedman’s bibliography, and his bibliography is 19 pages long (Blackstone’s COMMENTARIES is included).
It also shows that when given an opportunity to push a radical or marixist agenda, he didn’t. He was fair and balanced.
New decision:
Government Law-
Presidential electors have a mandatory duty to vote for the presidential and vice-presidential candidates of their party. They do not have a duty to independently ascertain whether those candidates are qualified for election. Secretary of state does not have a mandatory duty to ascertain whether candidates for president and vice president listed on California ballot are constitutionally qualified.
Keyes v. Bowen – filed October 25, 2010, Third District
Cite as 2010 S.O.S. 6081
Full text http://www.metnews.com/sos.cgi?1010%2FC062321
Mr. L. MARTIN, “…that an equal vote in each State was essential to the federal idea, and was founded in justice & freedom, not merely in policy: that tho’ the States may give up this right of sovereignty, yet they had not, and ought not: that the States like individuals were in a State of nature equally sovereign & free. In order to prove that individuals in a State of nature are equally free & independent he read passages from Locke, Vattel, Lord Summers- Priestly. To prove that the case is the same with States till they surrender their equal sovereignty, he read other passages in Locke & Vattel, and also Rutherford: that the States being equal cannot treat or confederate so as to give up an equality of votes without giving up their liberty…” Madison Debates on the Convention, Wednesday, June 27, 1787.
Rufus King also references Mr. Martin’s speech, “All men out of Society are by nature equal, in freedom and every other Property of men. Locke, Vattel and all other writers establish this Truth.”
Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England
Book the Third – Chapter the Fifth : Of Courts Ecclesiastical, Military and Maritime
in footnotes, “See the fentiments of the prefident Montefquieu, and M. Vattel (a fubject of the king of Pruffia) on the anfwer tranfmitted by the Englifh court to his Pruffian majefty’s Expofition desmotifs &c. A. D. 1753. (Montefquieu’s letters. 5 Mar. 1753. Vattel’s droit de gent. L. 2. c. 7. §. 84.).
I don’t want to sound like DancingRabbit simply point out Vattel references, I just think while he isn’t prominent today or hasn’t been prominent for the last 150 years, doesn’t mean that the founders weren’t familiar with his work.
In the case of Dr. Ramsay versus William L. Smith, Madison makes the point that at the time of the Revolution, the colonies did not revert to a state of nature but rather remained a cohesive society changing one form of government for another. Mr Jackson of Georgia disagreed. He said
“… I contend the principle is right, in some degree, of a total reversion to a state of nature amongst individuals, and to a mere parental or patriarchal authority, where the heads had families dependent on them ; the former, or individual, pursued that line which appeared right in his own eyes, and the cause which he thought just; and, in the latter case, the children follow the will of the father, who chose for them, as the person who brought tnem into life and whose fortunes they were to inherit. I conceive the whole allegiance or compact to have been dissolved…” Thos sentiments sound alot like Mr. Martin and Vattel.
But this is the same Mr. Jackson who during the 1790 debate over the Naturalization act said
“It was observed yesterday, Mr. Chairman, that we could not modify or confine our terms of naturalization: that we could not admit an alien to the rights of citizenship progressively. I shall take the liberty of supporting the contrary doctrine, which I contend for, by reference to the very accurate commentator on the laws of England, Justice Blackstone I, 10. “Naturalization,” says he, “cannot be performed but by an act of Parliament; for by this an alien is put in exactly the same state as if he had been born in the King’s legiance, except only, that he is incapable, as well as a denizen, of being a member of the Privy Council, or Parliament, holding offices, grants, &c. No bill for naturalization can be received in either House of Parliament without such disabling clause in it.” So that here we find, in the nation from which we derive most of our ideas on this subject, not only that citizens are made progressively, but that such a mode is absolutely, necessary to be pursed in every act of Parliament for the naturalization of foreigners.”
So Vattel was used in more of a philosophical way, while Blackstone was used in more of a practical way.
At the below link is a series of e-mails that you may find interesting, if you haven’t already come across them. It was wonderful to follow a truly civil discussion.
http://www.mail-archive.com/conlawprof@lists.ucla.edu/msg14772.html
This pretty much sums up this thread..the motive is clear as a freeper stated in this post to Obot jamese777.
“james777:
You are a crackpot. Vattel was relied on heavily for Virginia and the U.S. Constitution.
I suspect you know this but you want to marginalize the inspiration for our laws to draw people to your side.
It may work for lazy people but our documents and laws all have extant at their creation an influence or evolution of prior knowledge or work.
Vattel is one of them”.
We let Obot jamese777 post on FR..he pays his Troll Tax.
The Inhabitant AKA Obama is not a natural born citizen.
From Dreams from My Father:
I never emulate white men and brown men whose fates didn’t speak to my own. It was into my father’s image, the black man, son of Africa, that I’d packed all the attribute I sought in myself , the attributes of Martin and Malcolm(X), DuBois and Mandela.’
It remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names.’
I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother’s race”
I ceased to advertise my mother’s race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites.’
This is your Golden Calf….
37% approval rating.
“We let Obot jamese777 post on FR..he pays his Troll Tax.”
.
DancingRabbit tells us a lot about himself with this comment,
Hey how’s that INS story going for you? You seem to like bull pupu as served on FR!
Interesting to note that the discussion in February 2008 is about whether de Vattel would consider MCCAIN to be a natural born citizen, not Obama. I read it as the posters had no doubts about birth on soil to alien parents being a natural born citizen.
Thank you, Charo, for providing the link, I used the last one to get to Harnetts comment.
But there are others such as this by Lauren Gilbert, Associate Professor of Law, St. Thomas University School of Law 9I think this started the discussion):
“On the Immigration Law Professors Listserve, Leti Volpe raised the issue that
McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone to U.S. citizen parents. Is he a
“natural born citizen”? As I indicate below, he is automatically a U.S.
citizen by statute, but not necessarily under the Constitution. Several folks
thought that we should not interpret the Constitution so narrowly as to require
jus soli. I would welcome the thoughts of the Con Law listserve on this. This
is what I wrote:
I think we’ve always understood “natural born citizen”
to mean a person born on U.S. soil, but the natural born citizenship
language is in the original constitution, while the jus soli provision
was included in the 14th Amendment and is thus a more recent
understanding of “natural born”. Of course automatic citizenship
through birth abroad to U.S. parents is statutory, not constitutional,
and can be changed by statute. So what was the intent of the framers at
the time the Constitution was drafted? Arguably, it was jus soli,
because it refers to a “natural born citizen, or a Citizen of the United
States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution.” But I had
always understood this rule to be enshrined by the 14th Amendment! Does
the drafting history of either the 14th Amendment or Art.II, Sec.1, cl.
5 shed any light on this? Pretty fascinating!”
http://www.mail-archive.com/conlawprof@lists.ucla.edu/msg14741.html
Click on the right arrow next to thread to take you to the “Is McCain a “Natural Born Citizen” under Art. II?” thread.
You’re an ass.
I’ll check it out. I figured I found the middle of a discussion.
I don’t think Martin would agree, unless I am reading this incorrectly.
COMMENT: This may be helpful: Vattel wrote “there are states, as, for instance, England, where the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalizes the children of a foreigner.” Vattel, bk. 1, sec. 214.
Francisco Forrest Martin
We should be careful of how we read some of these comments. For example this:
“Thus, in light of Vattel, it seems reasonable to think that statutory
citizenship at birth by parentage is a kind of natural born citizenship, even
if Congress could have chosen not to recognize it.” Mark Scarberry
But Edward Hartnett Professor for Constitutional and Public Law and Service, Seton Hall University School of Law, is more to the point:
“Marty may well be right that the most interesting question is why we seem
to care so little about this. I would certainly agree that I would not
want an Article III court to attempt to finally resolve the question of
eligibility. But I would add one more entity to his list of those who may
resolve the issue: the members of Congress who decide whether or not to
count electoral votes for him.”
there is also this:
“There is, however, some doubt about this interpretation of the phrase.
I’ve read all the relevant literature–and in my opinion, the
necessary historical research is still to be done. “Natural born
citizen” was derived from a term of art in English law, “natural born
subject.” Natural born subjects were those who citizenship was
automatic–no statute was required. There were three classes of
natural born subjects: (1) persons born within the sovereign territory
of Great Britain, (2) children of the sovereign wherever born, (3)
children of the sovereign’s ambassadors wherever born. Others could
be made citizens at birth–BUT it required a statute.” Lawrence Solum
Or this
My soundbite to those who ask has been (and if I were asked by the press
would be) simply that “natural born citizens” includes in general those
born to women citizens of the US without regard to where the children were
born, subject to a couple of other conditions, which I rarely try to
explain. Instead I just make the conclusory point that both McCain and
Obama qualify.Steven Jamar
But here is the synposium that was held:
http://www.michiganlawreview.org/first-impressions/volume/107
I suspect there is something for everyone.
More fun with Constitutional experts:
“But, as fun as this sort of originalist exploration is, does anyone see even
one vote on the Supreme Court for excluding either McCain or Obama from the
Presidency on this basis ? Even given Bush v Gore? Is this not really a
question resolved by the nominating process and general election and thus
not even a question for the court except perhaps in the clearest of cases
such as Schwartzenegger and for such a person, who would nominate him in
light of the Constitutional bar? He is not even arguably a natural born
citizen.”Steven Jamar
Charo if you search on the site for “Obama Eligibility” you get eight results all of them are reponses to “McCain Consitutional Eligibility to be President”, none of them even suggest President Obama is not eligibile, if you search for “McCain eligibility” you get 38 results from at lesat three different threads about whether McCain was eligible. So if the President’s eligiblity is questionable why aren’t these guys talking about it?
Listen up Obots..
1. 1758 Edition of Law of Nations read by most of the Founders.
2. Jefferson recommends to his nephew to study Vattel.
3. Franklin states Vattel is being put to good use at the Convention.
4. Vattel is in Farrand.
5. Naturels is translated to natural born at the Convention.
6. Vattel writes states can form into a republic with out losing their sovereignty.
7. Pay attention..this is important..Vattel lists the republics..one is the Greek city states..
8. Here is your checkmate. The Greek city states….two citizen parents law.
Obama is merely an inhabitant.
9. The Civil Rights Act….what a mess it created. To bad 11 states were barred, 4 were part of the original 13.
10. Why were they barred…we know..the answer ..to pass the Act.
.
.
.
Vattel the citizenship follows the condition of the father or two citizen parents..
Bouviers Law Dictionary. slaves..partus sequitur ventrem…birth from the mother decides the status
Stop reading the bias Obot taking points..
Come to free republic..read the Vattel threads. See the recent Lakin thread 2600 plus posts..The Obama eligibility threads are open for discussion.
This site is limited obtaining information regarding the citizenship status of the current occupant in the WH.
If you want the truth visit us. If you want the standard hype and spin stay here.
Listen up birthers…
1. All members of the Constitutional Convention were lawyers who were extremely well versed in English Common Law.
2. “Natural Born” has a 400-year history in English Common Law. The Founders, being well versed in English Common Law would have known this.
3. “Natural Born” is translated into English as “Natural Born”.
4. Every single commentator on the constitution has taken the meaning of “Natural Born” from English Common Law. This includes people such as James Kent, and others who were alive during the time that the Constitution was being drafted. You’d think that if the Founders wanted to completely redefine “Natural Born” they would have told someone.
5. The Supreme Court, in a 1888 case, stated that the terms of the Constitution were versed in English Common Law.
6. Blackstone was read by every single one of the people in the Constitutional Convention.
7. The phrase that was actually translated in Vattel to “Natural Born” was not “Naturals” but “Indinges”. This translation was not done until 1797, a full 10 years after the Constitution was written.
8. Not once did any writer of the constitution, despite being lawyers in English Common Law, and knowing that English Common Law had 400 years of history with the term “Natural Born” ever mention that they were redifining the law away from the classic definition of “Natural Born” to mean the complete opposite.
9. Do you really think the founders were so stupid to redifine a term away from the common usage of the time, without telling anybody? So much so that the early commentators on the Constitution, such as James Kent, did not even know it?
The Founders wanted to form a republic…they looked to the ancients. Rome and Greece..not the King of England.
Citizens do not bow subjects do. Subjects are property.
We all know Obama bows.
Dancing Rabbit,
If you wanted to show you were actually interested in a discussion rather than just copying and pasting the (poorly spelled and grammatically incorrect) talking points of Birthers, you might start by responding to the corrections to your earlier posts.
But you keep posting the same stuff. if this is an example of the so called “Free Republic” then I will stay away.
Oh..I am in the bottom tier at FR..but..there are a horde of clever attorneys..
No absolutely not; this is totally and utterly wrong.
I can’t say whether or not Vattel was important in US’s constitutional history but I can say with 100% certainly that there is no such thing as the “two citizens parents” rule in Vattel.
That is simply a lie.
In fact I can’t see anything at all in Vattel that would disqualify Obama from being a native.
So Dancing Rabbit is seriously against civil rights for freed slaves.
That does explain things.
There is no such thing as “two citizen parents”; that’s a made up lie.
Vattel does say that the child inherits the citizenship of his father (or his mother if born out of wedlock) but does not say that he is not an “indigene” for his purposes and then further says that in some countries (he mentions England specifically) jus soli applies.
The fact is and remains that Vattel does NOT support the birthers’ argument. Take this from a French lawyer who’s read Vattel in the original and had a (small) acquaintance with his work before this brouhaha started. (This is how I ended up here in fact.)
In re Vattel you were sold a wrong bill of goods by incompetent or purposefully lying lawyers.
Well, you and your ilk wouldn’t want him being uppity, would you?
Please tell me Dancing Rabbit- you were not educated here in the U.S. were you?
I have been among those claiming that — while it is not the only factor — racism, or xenophobia, is at the core of the birthers’ movement.
Months ago I was struck by the fact that when I dug up those founding documents of the Ku Klux Klan how similar the arguments about natural-born etc. were to Mario’s legal theories. Not only in substance but phraseology.
Non-Christians, non-whites, need not apply to birtherland.
I find this remark amusing considering the sloppy kiss and hand holding of G W Bush with the Saudi King.
The point here isn’t that respect of foreign customs is wrong; it is that only a narrow-minded, dim-witted brute like “Dancing Rabbit” would applaud his Tribal Chief for doing something, and then hurl feces at the Other Tribe’s Chief for doing exactly the same thing.
We all have seen monkeys in cages doing that; it’s kind of sad to see it here.
There, Dancing Rabbit, here is a peanut to make you feel better. Now go scratch your fleas elsewhere.
The difference between this site and FR..we are trying to connect to dots..this site is attempting to prevent the connecting.
This is their goal…. protect Obama at all costs ..this is not how America is supposed to be..
There are reports Obama is imploding..I doubt he will finish his term..once the dots are connected..hes gone…
This site was set up to be a decoy.
In 451 Pericles introduced a new citizenship law which prevented the son of an Athenian father and a non-Athenian mother becoming a full citizen.
Four words: Yeah? And so what?
The United States of two centuries ago is not Ancient Greece, and for all their rhetoric, the men who wrote the Constitution weren’t looking to found a republic in the model of Ancient Athens; what they basically wanted was a Westminster system with modifications, founded on common law principles and classical English thought. Were you anything but a Freeper, your ignorance would be a source of shame.
“The regulations, therefore, respecting the right of citizenship were necessarily strict; but they were very different in the several Greek cities. In some, the full privileges of citizenship were secured, if both the parents had been citizens”
A Sketch of the Political History of Ancient Greece
By Arnold Hermann Ludwig Heeren
DancingRabbit you sound like you are having a really bad day. Please get some rest.
One Internet site is attempt to block people from doing investigative research?
It seems that some are more interested in making connections where none are. This entire episode show have ended over 2 years ago, but some seem to not be able to let go. Absolutely, nothing has been produced to challenge Obama’s Hawaiian birth and natural-born status.
Come one if there was anything that suggest wasn’t a natural-born citizen it would have been presented long ago.
Get some rest.
It is interesting that you cite a “new” citizenship law in 451 for a nation that isn’t America. That is over 15 centuries ago. Why not refer to current citizenship laws of America? Is this connecting the dot thing is years, decades, centuries, or another unit of measurement?
The problem with you is that you parrot incomplete bits of information without the historical knowledge to understand it.
First, Athenian law prior to 451 conferred citizenship if one was born of an Athenian father. The new law added the mother to that requirement and the necessity of a legal union.
Note that Pericles himself would have been excluded as his mother was from Sicyone and had a son with his wife Aspasia who was from Milesia. So the law was not made to be applied retroactively of course.
Historians claim that the purpose of that law was to reduce the number of new citizens which apparently was deemed to be too great at the time.
It was abandoned after the 4th century.
Every country has had a variety of contradicting laws on their books at various times: the age of consent, legal majority, the vote of women, prohibition…
Your ludicrous argument is akin to pointing out that because once alcoholic beverages were illegal in the US, they are illegal today.
I fail to see why a single law from a single point in time in Greek history in disagreement with what came before it, and after it, is relevant at all to the issue.
Hypothetically, since that law didn’t apply to Pericles and his children, why would it apply to Obama?
It was also aimed at reducing the influence of the aristocracy; I should say mainly aimed at that. The effect of the law was to immediately hamstring aristocratic tendencies at forming alliances with other states. Essentially, it was a pro-democracy measure, which makes the birthers’ citing of it even more ironic, given their disdain for democratic principles.
At the risk of coming across as an insufferable pedant, note that the Athenians had two kinds of citizens: “ἀστός” (astos) and “πολίτης” (politès) .
It is the second term we translate as “citizen” and we don’t have a real good equivalent for the first term.
“τὸ ἄστ…” (astu) = city as opposed to “ἡ πόλις” (polis) = the (city-)state.
Translating “astos” as “city-dweller” is somewhat inaccurate as one could be an “ἀστός” and have for legal residence a rural dème located outside of city limits.
The different rights and duties of “ἀστός” and “πολίτης” were defined by their city-state. To keep it simple, an “ἀστός”is a citizen who only enjoys civil rights, while an “πολίτης “also and in addition has political duties.
It is significant that in any contemporary discussions on the subject (Aristotle comes to mind), the feminine “ἡ ἀστή” (astè, feminine of ὁ ἀστός) is much more frequent than “ἡ πολ–τις” (politis, rare feminine form of “ὁ πολίτης”). The Law of 451 is in effect a blow in favor of equal rights for men and women by conferring citizenship to those born of two “ἀστο–ν” (astoin) BUT NOT TWO “πολιτα–ν” (politain).
This is crucial, showing that even then the simplistic so-called “two parents citizens” rule was, in fact, far more complex than what you suggest.
I don’t expect most people to know that sort of things but I do expect them to shut up when they don’t and especially not say things that are either wrong or misleading based on their ignorance.
Apologies for the lecture. I reread it and it does come across as awfully like Professor Kingsfield, but they really get on my nerves.
ok..the Founders had comic books in their library..
The founders were morons…never read..they could not read,..write..the romantic languages..they never read the classics….lets make them total idiots…why..becuse we have to protect our Golden Calf..AKA Obama..
Partus sequitur ventrem…this is how the Founders wanted citizenship…
And yet, you’re still an idiot.
Two things, Dancing Rabbit. First, you need to correctly identify the date for the change in Athenian citizenship laws. It was 451/450 B.C.E., not 451–that’s a difference of nearly a thousand years. Second, you neglect to mention that except in extraordinary circumstances, during Pericles’ day only men could become citizens, and citizenship could only be granted to men if they had completed military training in their late teens. The majority of people living in Athens were denied rights of citizenship, including women (who were classed as either the property of their father or husband), children, slaves (of which there were a great number, including Athenian males who had lost their citizenship because of debt) and all resident aliens. It’s clear that the men who wrote our Constitution did not look to Athens to guide their understanding of citizenship, and additional amendments to the Constitution illustrate that succeeding generations of Americans have continued to refute the example of Athens and other Greek city-states.
Troll.
On March 6, 1857, Chief Justice Roger B. Taney ruled that:
– Any person descended from Africans, whether slave or free, is not a citizen of the United States, according to the Constitution.
– The Ordinance of 1787 could not confer either freedom or citizenship within the Northwest Territory to non-white individuals.
– The Court ruled that black slaves had no claim to freedom. They were property, not citizens, and could not bring suit in a federal court. Since slaves were private property, the federal government could not revoke a slave owner’s rights based on where he lived, thus nullifying the essence of the Missouri Compromise. Taney, speaking for the majority, also ruled that since Scott was considered private property, he was subject to the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which prohibits taking property from its owner “without due process”.
Do you feel this applies to today?
But ironically, just like Vattel, the Pericles argument does NOT bolster the birthers’ case.
Arguably because of his legal residence, Obama’s dad would have been an astos (but not a polites because of his birth) and Pericles law required two astos as parents, NOT two polites.
Dancing Rabbit has the IQ of a monkey.
Of course he does.
They can’t wait to reenslave the darkies.
This is what happens when reptiles are let out of their cage.
The only person made to seem a total idiot is yourself, and you’ve done it by your own hand.
A link the astos / polites difference in English:
http://books.google.com/books?id=v0yJ9fECG88C&pg=PA269&lpg=PA269&dq=Athenian+citizenship+astos+polites&source=bl&ots=T8Q05Dzgvy&sig=IfyeDFznkqg6i95OHaqUlAlH-KY&hl=en&ei=tQHITLfwAoPv4Aa43qHmBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CCAQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Athenian%20citizenship%20astos%20polites&f=false
ok..lets follow the offspring of the mother..to make every one happy…forget the father..or two citizen parents..we throw history out the window…to protect the Golden Calf…
lets see…we have a new law..follow the condition of the mother…Inst. 2.1.19…This is the law to slaves and animals….the law children following the father applies to freemen..
But the founders never read..the above or Vattel..he was an obscure.idiot who wrote nonsense….Justinian..never existed….Aristotle..who the heck is that…Plato..must be a planet..the bible..the Founders never heard of it….before 1787…all of our recorded history..is wiped ..sent to the recycle bin..we have to protect our Golden calf..AKA Obama
Socialism needs democracy like the human body needs oxygen. – Leon Trotsky
Drunk troll.
Are you indeed drunk or merely a moron? It has been explained to you chapter and verse was neither Vattel nor Pericles’ law (notwithstanding their irrelevance) actually bolster your case.
Using Gallifreyan time travel technology, if either Vattel or Pericles could review Obama’s situation, there is a very strong likelihood that, based on their writings (or Aristotle’s in the case of Pericles), they would consider him a natural-born citizen.
You just don’t get it: it’s not that the founders hadn’t read their classics, it’s that those classics do NOT say what you think they say.
I won’t try to characterize the FreeRepublic as I have not read much of it, as I doubt you have read many of the nearly one thousand articles here, or the 63,000 comments here.
But I assure you that this site was set up for the sole purpose of objectively examining claims made of conspiracy theories about Barack Obama. You will notice that the site lacks any “praise” of Obama, for example.
What I have seen in your discussion, and in the arguments of folks like Apuzzo, is connecting the dots, but connecting only a very few dots using highly indirect connections, rather than connecting all the dots to create the obvious picture.
Just as the Dred Scott decision bastardized the law and history for the purpose of promoting the indefensible position that some persons are not persons, so do you take bits and pieces of history and law out of context to justify your two-citizen hypothesis, one which is not supported by American law history.
You are a purveyor of misinformation (a piss poor one at that), and add nothing of value to the debate.
“Educated” is not a word I would have chosen. The Rabbit could not have passed any English composition class I ever took.
Invite one over. You’re just wasting our electrons.
The books I read on the history of the development of American ideas on citizenship say that they looked to English common law. What documentation can you provide that they relied on the ancients on this subject?
Doc – there’s only one tier at FR, and that is the one she belongs to. They’re bottom feeders, all of them.
That’s a lie. One has to register at FR to comment. “DrConspiracy” is banned there without a single comment, and my attempt to register under another name was equally refused.
The Free Republic is not “open.” While this site is limited to the topic of Obama Conspiracy Theories, the discussion is open for that, as evidenced by our toleration of you.
We go for quality here, not quantity.
Wrong. The most recent polls give the President over 50%. He’s never dropped below 40%, and has a better approval rating than Reagan or either of the Bushes at this point in his term.
I’ve wondered for a while when Athenian citizenship laws would put in an appearance!
Would you like a tissue sidestepping rabbit? Why is it the most extreme types such as yourself call Obama patrionizing names like Messiah, or Golden Calf, while others who you try to mischaracterize never use that term. The fact is you’re wrong you’ve shown to be wrong and yet you continue repeating the same stuff. Our citizenship laws are not based on Vattel and even if they were you still misread vattel. Our constitution isn’t based on Vattel otherwise we would have restrictions on the right to bear arms, establishment of religion and restriction of freedom of speech which is something Vattel promoted.
This is laughable satire. The difference between this site and Free Republic is that the freepers restrict open discussion of the topics. People get banned there when they correct mistakes freepers make. Information that is correct is removed and instead of trying to connect the dots. The freepers focus on innuendo and rumors that are unproven instead of focusing on what’s available. This site looks at not only citizenship laws and the basis of them but also looks at the rumors that are out there and deconstructs them to determine their veracity. This is something free republic does not do. They already have a predetermined conclusion that Obama is illegitimate, illegal alien, usurper, etc.
You continue claiming all this stuff but not once have you proven it. What proof do you have that they read the 1758 edition? Where does Jefferson tell his nephew to study Vattel in regards to Citizenship Law? Prove Franklin said that. The original translation stated indigenous not natural. Vattel also says that we should follow the laws of individual countries and not what he stated. Greek city states had little to do with the basis of our country.
And not supported by Vattel and only supported by Athenian history is you define “citizen” in a limited fashion as “land owner/resident” and not in the political sense.
I think birthers should be caged in wheels like chipmunks and made to produce electricity to replace what they waste here.
Idiots like Prancing Rabbit are actually classic Freeperville inhabitants.
They sup, very shallowly, at the latest idiocy pushed by the current loudest voice and take it as gospel.
There is no attempt to apply critical thinking nor the simplest and most basic attempt to research. Hell, the simplest of Google searches almost invariably invalidates all of their cherished memes.
The more the idea validates there inevitably bigotted viewpoint the more tightly it is held.
So, in what passes for the mind of Prancer, ANY linkage, however tenuous, to support their hatred of the current adminstration makes the point a “fact”
In other words they all take the FAILboat to Freeperville and cenor any voices that say….”Err guys…..we’re sinking here” as Nazi/Lieberal/Commie/Fascist/Traitor scum.
They have a REAL problem with grasping that the Constitution and the Amendments therof are NOT a Pick ‘n Mix.
I’m looking forward to the first use by a birther of the Law Code of Hammurabi. I’m especially fond of this provision: “If during an unsuccessful operation a patient dies, the arm of the surgeon must be cut off.” Now that’s justice!
Dancing Rabbit has the IQ of a monkey””
I demand an apology, there was no need to insult a monkey!
What did a monkey ever do to you.
No monkey is as dumb as the Wabbit.
Now now Lupin, Monkeys demonstrate they have the capacity for learning new things, Rabbit has shown he doesn’t possess those capabilities.
“This site was set up to be a decoy”
now what idiot wrote this?
Oh, it was DancingRabbit, never mind.
DancingRabbit …. you keep on missing the point.
It seems that when the constitution was written the founder wrote the foundation for America law, and created the foundation for the writing of laws governing what wasn’t included in the Constitution. The writing of people like De Vattel (not Vattel) are mute on who is or isn’t an American citizen since that is the authority of American laws and the Constitution.
De Vattel and others (including the founders) ideas on citizenship is an interesting topic for discussion.
I humbly stand corrected and apologize to monkeys everywhere. They can indeed learn — unlike D.R.
Is this the kind of clever arguments we would see on FR? I would think a child would understand that asserting the founders may have been familiar with books defining citizenship other than under English law does not prove that followed any such rule. Duh. They were obviously familiar with Blackstone and Coke too and actually grew up in a society where citizenship and allegiance were defined by place of birth alone. If you want to argue that they adopted a rule different from England, you need to produce evidence that they did. Unfortunately for you, there is none for in the federal convention only place of birth was discussed with respect to citizenship and eligibility and every legal authority of the founding period defined citizenship by the common law.
What is sad is the geniuses at FR can’t comprehend that De Vattel was argued before the Supreme Court more than a century ago and expressly rejected in favor the common law interpretation. It is thus settled law to the rest of the legal world other than the fringe birther threads and their genius online law school graduates. You and your buddies can pretend that “natural born” means something other than what the Supreme Court has said it means, but no court will give you the time of day. Rather, they will do exactly what the Ankeny court did and simply point to Wong Kim Ark
Dancing Rabbit: There are reports Obama is imploding..I doubt he will finish his term..once the dots are connected..hes gone.
.
recall Orly’s “…gone in thirty days”
these people actully believe this pupu,
so how can they function on a day to day basis
I feel sorry for the sadness they cause themselves
That’s a good point. When I look for references to him I always look under both “D” and “V.”
Sorry, I think Chief Justice and former President of the Unitied States William Howard Taft said it best:
“The language of the Constitution cannot be interpreted safely except by reference to the common law and to British institutions as they were when the instrument was framed and adopted. The statesmen and lawyers of the Convention who submitted it to the ratification of the Conventions of the thirteen States were born and brought up in the atmosphere of the common law, and thought and spoke in its vocabulary. They were familiar with other forms of government, recent and ancient, and indicated in their discussions earnest study and consideration of many of them but when they came to put their conclusions into the form of fundamental law in a compact draft, they expressed them in terms of the common law, confident that they could be shortly and easily understood.” in Ex Parte Grossman
If the birthers should ever find a plaintiff who would be granted standing to sue Obama, perhaps the introduction evidence from Emer deVattel’s Law of Nations might carry some legal weight with a judge or justices. But thus far, in more than 70 attempts, no birther lawsuit has proceeded to an evidence phase or an actual trial.
I would also note that nearly every legislative day in Washington D.C., the House of Representatives, after the close of business has a tradition of time for “Special Orders” speeches which alternate between the Republicans and the Democrats. Members of Congress can speak on any issue that they care to speak about. In the year and ten months since the inauguration of Barack Hussein Obama II, there have been ZERO Special Orders speeches on the issue of Obama’s eligibility and ZERO mentions of deVattel on citizenship.
Furthermore, both John Boehner, in his role of leader of the House Republicans and Mitch McConnell, in his role as Republican Senate leader have invited Barack Hussein Obama to address their respective Republican caucuses for questions and answers and ZERO questions were asked about President Obama’s eligibility to assume the office of the presidency.
I commend all birthers to the CURRENT law of the land under which Barack Hussein Obama was elected with the most popular votes of any candidate in American history, had his 365 Electoral College votes officially certified by Vice President Dick Cheney without objection from any of the 535 members of Congress and was sworn in by Chief Justice John Roberts:
“Nationals and Citizens of the United States at Birth”:
a) A person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
US Code, Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter III, Part I, Section 1401
“It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.”–James Madision, Founding Father, Primary Author of the US Constitution and 4th President of the United States
Yes, Bugs Bunny just makes stuff up. According to pollingreport.com, Obama’s lowest approval rating has been 41%, In the five most recent polls his approval rating has ranged from 46% to 54%.
http://pollingreport.com/obama_job.htm
Of course, he will not admit that he is wrong. Trolls never concede anything. When they get their facts wrong, they either ignore the corrections or they continue to spread their lies.
Dancing Rabbit,
How can I get in touch with you? You said you doubt Obama wioll finish his term? Howsabout putting some cold cash behind this belief? Money where your mouth is?
JD Reed
They beat up people – just like in Kentucky. Way to go, Repugs.
I made a career as a NYS licensed optician. I would not let Rand Paul near me. As a licensed health care giver, everyone who appeared before me had to be treated with dignity. Rand Paul does not believe that, nor do his fans.
Birthers are cowards.
and after beating them up, they demand they appologize to them:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/10/woman-stomped-outside-rand-pau.html
Just shocking.
Just like when Harry Wittington got shot he was made to apologize to Dick Cheney even though it was Cheney’s fault. Wittington still hasn’t gotten an apology from Cheney.
There is a belief in some birther circles (freerepublic being one of them) that there are historical documents which have never been revealed, that have been held by families for generations. These documents according to the belief will shortly be presented ( I’m guessing in the Donofrio QW brief). And these documents will supposedly show that the framers used Vattel in the Constitution possibly even in the “natural born” clause.
Something along the lines of “Gee, I really like what Vattel wrote about natural born, maybe we should include that in the new constitution.”
I like to refer to this as the birther – “deus ex machina” theory. And it is suppose to take place in the spring of 2011. I know it sounds very similar to the “second coming” claims from fringe christian groups. But there are distinct parallels being these two types of mentalities.
Now, first of all, I would have a difficult time accepting at face value documents which are suddenly sprung on a court. Especially historical documents which have not been examined for not just veracity but also for context. Everyone knows that birthers have very poor read comprehension (dancingrabbit being a prime example) and so the documents (if they exist) might say one thing but actually mean something else.
Second, I would not be surprised if members of the founding generation did promote the ideas of the new nation having reverted to the law of nature (which as we all know is birther code words for Vattel). There was an on-going debate over the meaning of citizenship. Especially, in the times after the Revolution, when property was being confiscated from the loyalists and loyals were making claims against the states to recover seized properties. Read Represenative Jackson’s response to James Madison’s speech in the Ramsay v. Smith trial. There is considerable anger in his words and warnings about people claiming to be citizens entering office,
“Sir, experience has proved the contrary. The Middle and Eastern States, except Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York, never had the enemy long with them ; there was not the same trial of men, and they knew not the audacity of those villains. After having received their 1789. equivalent for, in many cases, feigned losses, from the British Crown, they are daily returning and pushing into office. It is necessary we should guard against them. Britain, although humiliated, yet has a longing eye upon this country ; she has yet posts in it. Although it is improbable that so many of these people will get into Congress as to form a corrupt majority, yet they have ambition and resentment enough to attempt it. At this moment, sir, in Georgia, are some of the most daring bringing ejectments for estates which their fathers had deservedly forfeited, although themselves had imbrued their hands in the blood of their fellow-citizens.
Madison’s speech always struck me as overkill, there was more then enough evidence to
conclude Smith was a citizen. I suspect, Madison wasn’t just addressing the Smith issue, but the entire debate over the law of nature and what constituted a citizen. And this is why this particular speech is so important. If it had been given by anyone beside Madison, it would not carry the same weight.
I guess we’ll just have to wait and see if anything turns up. It certainly wouldn not be the first time a birther prediction had gone sour.
Lupin,
I love your posts, so please don’t dumb them down no matter how “smarty-pants” they may sound to freepers.
My favorite birther lie of the day:
Birther forums are open for discussion at Free Republic!
The truth is, if a birther made a post claiming that Obama killed JFK, and you posted a factual rebuttal, you would then be banned at F.R. for being an OBOT.
ANYTHING negative about Obama is taken to be true, no matter how ridiculous, and dissension is deleted quicker than Stalin on speed.
Madison was railing against the still considerable number of British Royalists holding out for a return to the pre-revolutionary status quo, or even plotting a counter-revolution. There were, in Florida, militias training for invasion just waiting for the go-ahead. There were pirates specifically chartered to attack American shipping. There were titled aristocrats attempting to get themselves elected so they could be in positions of influence ‘when it all came down’.
This is the context of the citizenship debates going on in the first few decades after the revolution.
Pretty eerie, that Madison quote, when brought forward more than 200 years.
Responding to gorefan regarding these alleged documents:
If these documents actually existed, that would actually SUPPORT OBAMA’S POSITION. The point is that if the founders had seriously considered the Vattel position — apologies to Lupin, I mean the Vattel position as articulated (?) by the Birthers — but then NOT included it in the Constitution (note that the “two citizen parents” requirement is NOT expressly in the Cosntitution) then that would be a very strong argument for the conclusion that the Constitution should NOT be interpreted per the Vattel/two citizen parents approach. It’s a basic principle of legislative interpretation: if a legislature considers but rejects an amendment or a particular draft of a bill, then the final document that does not include the rejected language should not be interepreted as if it did include that language.
I think your answer is exactly right, if they were going to change a common term like “natural born”, they would have added a qualifing statement in the constitution to explain the new meaning to the voters, who couldn’t read french and had never heard of Vattel.
To everyone: here is an important profile of Obama. I read it thoroughly, and feel it is accurate.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/28/books/28klopp.html
Dr. C.
Are you familiar with this article – http://www.yale.edu/yjil/PDF/Cleveland.pdf
Please obtain the list of the books the Founders had in their possession during the Convention..
The list is in the Congressional.Record.and the list is posted on Free Republic..on the Vattel thread.
We posted the order form..placing an order of books..one of them was Vattel’s Law of Nations..This is an addition to the 1773 Editions Franklin received from Dumas.
We posted the list of books removed from an English ship captured during the Great Event..the books were being sent to English prisioners of war..the manifest lists Vattels Law of Nations.
The Founders grabbed the books and placed them in their possession.
Like I send earlier..if you want to get the complete story..go to..
And yet, you’re still wrong and an irrelevant idiot.
I have it on good authority the Founders had a stash of pornography. That’s why Hugh Hefner became so successful.
Also, Jefferson was intimate with 15-year-old Sally Hemmings. Do you feel this legitimizes adults with children? I am waiting for your answer with bated breath.
For the mentally challenged birther idiots:
“No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.” – U.S. Comstitution
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH News Release
GOVERNOR ______________________________________________________________________
CHIYOME LEINAALA FUKINO M.D. DIRECTOR
______________________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release: July 27, 2009 09-063
STATEMENT BY HEALTH DIRECTOR CHIYOME FUKINO, M.D.
“I, Dr. Chiyome Fukino, Director of the Hawai’i State Department of Health, have seen the original vital records maintained on file by the Hawaii State Department of Health verifying Barack Hussein Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born American citizen. I have nothing further to add to this statement or my original statement issued in October 2008 over eight months ago.”
Barack Hussein Obama II (born August 4, 1961) is the 44th and current President of the United States. He is the first African American to hold the office. Obama previously served as a United States Senator from Illinois, from January 2005 until he resigned after his election to the presidency in November 2008.
A native of Honolulu, Hawaii, Obama is a graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School, where he was the president of the Harvard Law Review.
One of those books was Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England.
James Madison said this,
“Mr. DICKENSON mentioned to the House that on examining Blackstone’s Commentaries, he found that the terms, “ex post facto” related to criminal cases only; that they would not consequently restrain the States from retrospective laws in civil cases, and that some further provision for this purpose would be requisite.”
So DancingRabbit are you up for a challenge?
How many times are words or phrases in the Constitution mentioned in Blackstone or Vattel. For example, how many times does Blackstone mention ex post facto laws versus how many times does Vattel mentions ex post facto laws?
Use these items of the Constitution:
Ex post facto, bills of attainder, habeas corpus, letters of Marque, impeachment, pardons, “Offenses against the Law of Nations”, piracy, felonies, high seas, “natural born”
Also, they are screaming that Obama is secretly a Muslim, and not a Christian:
United States Constitution, Article VI, paragraph 3:
“no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”
Birthers are bigots and cowards.
DancingRabbit, why do you keep telling us to come to the Stalinist FreeRepublic when you know they censor and ban us, and then dance and brag about it?
Have you been censored or banned here?
One interesting thing about McCain’s situation is that the founders could never have contemplated the circumstances of his birth. It never occurred to the founders that one day the United States would have a standing Armed Forces with military bases on foreign soil, much less overseas bases on which spouses would be living and children would be born. McCain wasn’t the only son of a flag officer to be born overseas. For example, Arthur MacArthur IV, the son of Douglas MacArthur, was born in Manila in 1938. Does anyone really believe that it was the intent of the founders that people like John McCain and Arthur MacArthur should not have been eligible to be President?
What I find both sad and ironic is that, even if somehow you could magically use Vattel or Pericles’ legal constructions to apply to Obama’s situation (a pretty stupid and outlandish notion), that still arguably would NOT automatically disqualify Obama.
(I’m saying “arguably” because there are still variables that would need to be considered and assumptions made, such as finding a proper modern-day equivalent to the “astos” status.)
The birthers somehow think Vattel or Pericles are the instant jackpot, but they are are not. Some of it is ignorance, of course; but with cases like Mario’s, what we have is a purposeful — dare I say Orwellian? — distortion of the historical record which I find very disturbing and should not go unchallenged.
Which is why I think it is important to not stop at “Of course Vattel/Pericles don’t apply” but take a step further and say “And they don’t say what you claim they do.”\
History does matter.
Sinking ship Tuesday.
.Saying there’s no way Democrats can keep control of the House, Ireland’s largest bookie on Wednesday said it has already paid off all bettors who wagered the GOP would capture the chamber.
Oh my..what happened..The golden calf..AKA Obama
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/oct/27/bookie-says-gop-cant-lose-house-pays-bets-early/
Saw Fr found the smoking gun..regarding Vattel..
Obama will be impeached, and you’ll get your investigation:
http://newyorkleftist.blogspot.com/2010/10/obama-will-be-impeached.html
All republics used the two citizen parents or ctizen father.. concept…
.Rome…the Greek City states..
If you read edge19 at fr..or is it edge919…he destroys WKA natural born citizen belief…
There is no way..a leader of a state can visit..the US with his concubine..and have a child..and that child is eligible for president..that makes no sense..
The poll number posted was from harris
When I read posts Vattel was is obscure..it makes me laugh..FR found the smoking gun..a freeper..found the definition..used in the 1758 Edition..in a dictionary..linking..natural born to indigenous..
The author is the son of a Founder” a Colonel in Washington’s.army.and Secy State to Washington..
The father recommend to the son to study Vattel..the son wrote to his father…Yeah…
Ooops FAil again from Prancing Wabbit
Exception to the rule, as clearly documented, if you bothered to read.
Them not in the allegiance or control of the nation which includes children of them with diplomatic immunity (which implicitly includes a head of state) and children of soldiers of an invading armies soldiers.
Report to the Principals office…..again.
In any case the Constitution, Constitutional Amendments, case law, Supreme Court and Supreme Court rulings all say “Prancing Wabbit….full of poo that one”
Next….
That is factually false.
In the real world people are influenced by what they read and hear. They select from those influences what they like, and reject those ideas that they don’t. They even will change those ideas that have been selected or might even use one part of the idea.
There are so many examples of this.
This is a simple concept for one individual to engage in but get more complicated when you have several people.
There hasn’t been any proof that even one of the founders read any of De Vattel’s works. And that is the first “dot” to connect.
Actually there has. Franklin’s correspondence indicates had a copy and Washington had a copy at least after he was president (he checked it out but failed to return it).
What Dancing Rabbit claims, wholly unsupported, is that “most” most of the founders had read the 1758 edition of de Vattel, which would be remarkable since it was in French. The 1760 London edition makes more sense, but again, there is no evidence that “most” of the founders read it, and none of them read a version with the phrase “natural born citizen” either in English or literally translated French before the Constitution was ratified.
If and when you provide specifics, we can discuss it. The real smoking gun, however, is Lord Coke’s decision in Calvin’s Case.
Douche breath, can you read? I don’t think you can, birther idiot.
“No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.” – U.S. Constitution
Again you have presented no proof that they used Vattel as a basis of the constitution. All you’ve said is that the founding fathers read books but you have yet to make a real connection showing its vast importance to the founding document
Did any of your parents serve in the military? Did you? How exactly was Obama’s father the leader of a state?
And how exactly does De Vattel’s book take more importance than the other books in possession at the convention? You are single handedly trying to bolster De Vattel higher than he was in regards to citizenship and the constitution. What was the name of that english ship?
The presidents party historically has always lost seats during midterms. You must be a young pup if you don’t know this
Dancing Rabbit:
Love your posts..kind a Mametesque..got a question..don’t know, but hope u will..u no, answer..question of meaning..if BO golden calf.. who should be Aaron;Moses? Speedy reply..maybe..say what? Kinda fun 2 write this..way.Like ol’ time telegraph message..or trying type while on bumpy rode..r u long haul..truck driver?
LMAO
The President has NEVER dropped to 37%. Why do you persist in lying?
Also, Greek citizenship law is not now and never has been the law of the United States. Why are you so unpatriotic? Could it be that you were born somewhere else? Like, say, Moldova?
Also, what is this “concubine” nonsense? Since when does a graduate student’s wife count as a concubine? Their marriage might not have been valid *in Kenya*, but it certainly was valid enough in the United States that Stanley Ann had to divorce Barack Obama Sr. before her second marriage. Is this yet another attempt to smear a dead woman, or claim that a marriage between a black man and a white woman cannot be valid because of race?
I’m also curious as to how the actions of a group of Irish bookies impact the eligibility of an American president.
Nope, no, nein, nyet and non. Say it as much as you want, you ignorant buffoon, but it’s still not true.
Even if so, Vattel does not actually disqualify Obama.
I swear, it’s like he’s got Asperger.
I’m reading the harris poll. He’s talking about an online poll, because we all know how accurate those are. The harris poll remains an outlier
The fact that the Founders had access to, read, or even discussed a particular book is dispositive of nothing. You have to show they relied on it on the subject of citizenship. And of course, you can’t….so move on.
So Rabbit are you up for a challenge? It’s ok if you are too scared, may be one of the aslum inmates at fr will help you/
How many times are words or phrases in the Constitution mentioned in Blackstone or Vattel. For example, how many times does Blackstone mention ex post facto laws versus how many times does Vattel mentions ex post facto laws?
Use these items of the Constitution:
Ex post facto, bills of attainder, habeas corpus, letters of Marque, impeachment, pardons, “Offenses against the Law of Nations”, piracy, felonies, high seas, “natural born”
If Vattel was so important to the Constitution this should be easy for you.
Why do I think you’ll ignore the challenge?
Which of course is utter b.s., and totally irrelevant, since there is not an iota of evidence that the founders looked to Greece and Rome for citizenship
Sure….I’ll buy what some mystery poster on FReep over what the entire legal community says. You guys are so deluded it’s not even funny. There is no debate in the legal community that a person born on US soil and not a child of a diplomats or foreign military, is a NBC. All your de Vattel stuff is junk law that is laughed at by real lawyers. It’s settled law.
Finally, you said something that is accurate. You are absolutely correct. That is one of the exceptions (it’s that whole “subject to the jurisdiction” part. A foreign head of state is not subject to the jurisdiction of the US, nor would his concubine…it’s known as diplomatic immunity). However, none of this applies, as B.H Obama Sr. was not a head of state, nor a diplomat, no a foreign soldier attached to a diplomatic mission (or occupying army), nor was the president’s mother a concubine traveling with a head of state. She was a NBC, who at that point (as far as I know) never even left the US.
Please. No serious pollster takes Harris seriously. The once-respected Harris Poll is now an interactive poll, which anyone can participate it in simply by registering at the Harris website. In other words, there is nothing scientific about it.
I think that the composite polling sites offer the best information. I use both pollingreport.com and realclearpolitics.com which offer ten or twelve national polls. I throw out the highest and the lowest as outliers and then average the rest and add in a plus or minus 3 point margin of statistical error.
What you get from all that is that Obama is a 50/50 president at the moment with a slight lean toward the negative side of the equation, like 48% approval and 52% disapproval.
In other words, Obama’s numbers are so-so and nowhere near where they would have an impact on the birther issue in either direction.
I agree. And neither site uses the Harris data, because the Harris data isn’t scientific.
That’s correct. Hasn’t John Zogby also gone to some kind of internet polling?
after al ofl his postings, we find that DancingRabbit has learned nothing, there s reason for that, he is allergic to facts & truth, he needs to feel comfortable in his hate for Obama, so logic is out the window, poor guy. He will probably teach his kids to hate Obama (when he gets old enough to marry & have kids).
.
like the rapid religious person that lies for Jesus, Rabbit lies and knows it, that’s their MO! “Free Republic” is a synonym for “Lying sack of goose pupu”
So, that is one of Dancing Rabbits dots.
It isn’t believed that each of the founders had different political philosophies?
From learning foreign languages as an adult I have learned that words don’t fit nicely when translated between two languages. I am of the opinion that “natural born” is a distinctly English term.
Ironically, my husband sent this to me the other day. It is a letter to Thomas Jefferson to his 15 year old nephew, Peter Carr. As you’ll see, reading the text in French would likely not be an issue to our educated founding fathers.
DEAR PETER, — I received, by Mr. Mazzei, your letter of April the
20th. I am much mortified to hear that you have lost so much time; and
that when you arrived in Williamsburg, you were not at all advanced
from what you were when you left Monticello. Time now begins to be
precious to you. Every day you lose, will retard a day your entrance
on that public stage whereon you may begin to be useful to yourself.
However, the way to repair the loss is to improve the future time. I
trust, that with your dispositions, even the acquisition of science is
a pleasing employment. I can assure you, that the possession of it is,
what (next to an honest heart) will above all things render you dear
to your friends, and give you fame and promotion in your own country.
When your mind shall be well improved with science, nothing will be
necessary to place you in the highest points of view, but to pursue
the interests of your country, the interests of your friends, and your
own interests also, with the purest integrity, the most chaste honor.
The defect of these virtues can never be made up by all the other
acquirements of body and mind. Make these then your first object. Give
up money, give up fame, give up science, give the earth itself and all
it contains, rather than do an immoral act. And never suppose, that in
any possible situation, or under any circumstances, it is best for you
to do a dishonorable thing, however slightly so it may appear to you.
Whenever you are to do a thing, though it can never be known but to
yourself, ask yourself how you would act were all the world looking at
you, and act accordingly. Encourage all your virtuous dispositions,
and exercise them whenever an opportunity arises; being assured that
they will gain strength by exercise, as a limb of the body does, and
that exercise will make them habitual. From the practice of the purest
virtue, you may be assured you will derive the most sublime comforts
in every moment of life, and in the moment of death. If ever you find
yourself environed with difficulties and perplexing circumstances, out
of which you are at a loss how to extricate yourself, do what is
right, and be assured that that will extricate you the best out of the
worst situations. Though you cannot see, when you take one step, what
will be the next, yet follow truth, justice, and plain dealing, and
never fear their leading you out of the labyrinth, in the easiest
manner possible. The knot which you thought a Gordian one, will untie
itself before you. Nothing is so mistaken as the supposition, that a
person is to extricate himself from a difficulty, by intrigue, by
chicanery, by dissimulation, by trimming, by an untruth, by an
injustice. This increases the difficulties ten fold; and those who
pursue these methods, get themselves so involved at length, that they
can turn no way but their infamy becomes more exposed. It is of great
importance to set a resolution, not to be shaken, never to tell an
untruth. There is no vice so mean, so pitiful, so contemptible; and he
who permits himself to tell a lie once, finds it much easier to do it
a second and third time, till at length it becomes habitual; he tells
lies without attending to it, and truths without the world’s believing
him. This falsehood of the tongue leads to that of the heart, and in
time depraves all its good dispositions.
An honest heart being the first blessing, a knowing head is the
second. It is time for you now to begin to be choice in your reading;
to begin to pursue a regular course in it; and not to suffer yourself
to be turned to the right or left by reading any thing out of that
course. I have long ago digested a plan for you, suited to the
circumstances in which you will be placed. This I will detail to you,
from time to time, as you advance. For the present, I advise you to
begin a course of antient history, reading every thing in the original
and not in translations. First read Goldsmith’s history of Greece.
This will give you a digested view of that field. Then take up antient
history in the detail, reading the following books, in the following
order: Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophontis Hellenica, Xenophontis
Anabasis, Arrian, Quintus Curtius, Diodorus Siculus, Justin. This
shall form the first stage of your historical reading, and is all I
need mention to you now. The next, will be of Roman history (*). From
that, we will come down to modern history. In Greek and Latin poetry,
you have read or will read at school, Virgil, Terence, Horace,
Anacreon, Theocritus, Homer, Euripides, Sophocles. Read also Milton’s
Paradise Lost, Shakspeare, Ossian, Pope’s and Swift’s works, in order
to form your style in your own language. In morality, read Epictetus,
Xenophontis Memorabilia, Plato’s Socratic dialogues, Cicero’s
philosophies, Antoninus, and Seneca. In order to assure a certain
progress in this reading, consider what hours you have free from the
school and the exercises of the school. Give about two of them, every
day, to exercise; for health must not be sacrificed to learning. A
strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercise, I
advise the gun. While this gives a moderate exercise to the body, it
gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played
with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the
body, and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be
the constant companion of your walks. Never think of taking a book
with you. The object of walking is to relax the mind. You should
therefore not permit yourself even to think while you walk; but divert
your attention by the objects surrounding you. Walking is the best
possible exercise. Habituate yourself to walk very far. The Europeans
value themselves on having subdued the horse to the uses of man; but I
doubt whether we have not lost more than we have gained, by the use of
this animal. No one has occasioned so much, the degeneracy of the
human body. An Indian goes on foot nearly as far in a day, for a long
journey, as an enfeebled white does on his horse; and he will tire the
best horses. There is no habit you will value so much as that of
walking far without fatigue. I would advise you to take your exercise
in the afternoon: not because it is the best time for exercise, for
certainly it is not; but because it is the best time to spare from
your studies; and habit will soon reconcile it to health, and render
it nearly as useful as if you gave to that the more precious hours of
the day. A little walk of half an hour, in the morning, when you first
rise, is advisable also. It shakes off sleep, and produces other good
effects in the animal economy. Rise at a fixed and an early hour, and
go to bed at a fixed and early hour also. Sitting up late at night is
injurious to the health, and not useful to the mind. Having ascribed
proper hours to exercise, divide what remain, (I mean of your vacant
hours) into three portions. Give the principal to History, the other
two, which should be shorter, to Philosophy and Poetry. Write to me
once every month or two, and let me know the progress you make. Tell
me in what manner you employ every hour in the day. The plan I have
proposed for you is adapted to your present situation only. When that
is changed, I shall propose a corresponding change of plan. I have
ordered the following books to be sent to you from London, to the care
of Mr. Madison. Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon’s Hellenics, Anabasis
and Memorabilia, Cicero’s works, Baretti’s Spanish and English
Dictionary, Martin’s Philosophical Grammar, and Martin’s Philosophia
Britannica. I will send you the following from hence. Bezout’s
Mathematics, De la Lande’s Astronomy, Muschenbrock’s Physics, Quintus
Curtius, Justin, a Spanish Grammar, and some Spanish books. You will
observe that Martin, Bezout, De la Lande, and Muschenbrock are not in
the preceding plan. They are not to be opened till you go to the
University. You are now, I expect, learning French. You must push
this; because the books which will be put into your hands when you
advance into Mathematics, Natural philosophy, Natural history, &c.
will be mostly French, these sciences being better treated by the
French than the English writers. Our future connection with Spain
renders that the most necessary of the modern languages, after the
French. When you become a public man, you may have occasion for it,
and the circumstance of your possessing that language, may give you a
preference over other candidates. I have nothing further to add for
the present, but husband well your time, cherish your instructors,
strive to make every body your friend; and be assured that nothing
will be so pleasing, as your success, to, Dear Peter,
Your’s affectionately,
(*) Livy, Sullust, Caesar, Cicero’s epistles, Suetonius, Tacitus, Gibbon.
Actually, this is the pertinent part. but I found the letter worth the read. Maybe you will as well.
“The American Revolution was the fruit of a struggle waged in Europe for self-government and the nation-state, which began with the Renaissance that was launched at the Council of Florence.
It would not have been possible, without the collaboration of Europe’s Leibnizian networks.
The support in Europe for the republican cause in America is exemplified by the work of Emmerich de Vattel, whose text, The Law of Nations, presented the justification for a republican overthrow of an oligarchical government,
and the Leibnizian conception of “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness”;
American pamphleteers began using Vattel’s work almost immediately after its publication in 1758″.
Posted at Free republic several minutes ago…
I realize this site has to trash Vattel to protect their Golden Calf AKA Obama.
All kinds of gems in that letter. I plan to go over it with my son, when he is a little older, give me a little time to do some catching up on the “basics” ha
“the work of Emmerich de Vattel, whose text, The Law of Nations, presented the justification for a republican overthrow of an oligarchical government,”
keep telling the public…vattel was a nobody…an obscure writer..no one paid any attention to the guy..
Frankin..read the..book..said..wow..we can..have a revolution..
It is a letter FROM Jefferson.
Every one here should get on their knees and thank this obscure..writer..who no one could read..cause it is in French…lol…isnt that right Doc..
You wrote its in French..no one could understand the words..
More irrelevant drivel. Until you can show that they relied on it for citizenship, you’re wasting everyone’s time. …which of course you can’t, because they didn’t. It is settled law. Citizenship of the parents doesn’t matter for a person born on US soil (with the very narrow exception of diplomats and foreign troops).
Funny…still no mention of citizenship….
DrC “a look at some of his writings that are very “un-American” .
“The use of pamphlets as political organizing tools allowed large numbers of people to participate, since pamphlets could be produced cheaply.
The circulation of political pamphlets expanded rapidly with thousands of different ones printed.
Their content reflected the high educational level of the colonies, often making comparisons to ancient Greece and Rome, and quoting writers such as Homer, Sophocles, Plato, Xenophon, Plutarch, Cicero, Vergil, Shakespeare, Swift, and Vattel.”
Vattel used in the founding of the United States.
Vattel used to justify the American Revolution.
Vattel for citizenship..
Vattel used to inform the Colonists..they can break away from the King..
Vattel will be used to bring down this illegal Golden Calf AKA Obama.
May I suggest BBQ sauce instead? Golden Calf with Vattel Vindaloo? Barbaric!
Mr Mazzei was a friend to Jefferson and in a famous letter to him Jefferson wrote:
“The aspect of our politics has wonderfully changed since you left us. In place of that noble love of liberty and republican government which carried us triumphantly thro’ the war, an Anglican, monarchical and aristocratical party has sprung up, whose avowed object is to draw over us the substance as they have already done the forms of the British government. The main body of our citizens however remain true to their republican principles, the whole landed interest is with them, and so is a great mass of talents. Against us are the Executive, the Judiciary, two out of three branches of the legislature, all of the officers of the government, all who want to be officers, all timid men who prefer the calm of despotism to the boisterous sea of liberty, British merchants and Americans trading on British capitals, speculators and holders in the banks and public funds a contrivance invented for the purposes of corruption and for assimilating us in all things, to the rotten as well as the sound parts of the British model. It would give you a fever were I to name to you the apostates who have gone over to these heresies, men who were Samsons in the field and Solomons in the council, but who have had their heads shorn by the harlot England. In short we are likely to preserve the liberty we have obtained only by unremitting labors and perils. But we shall preserve them, and our mass of weight and wealth on the good side is so great as to leave no danger that force will ever be attempted against us. We have only to awake and snap the Lilliputian cords with which they have been entangling us during the first sleep which succeeded our labors. Thomas Jefferson, Monticello Apr. 24. 1796. [bold emphasis added]
Jefferson was upset with the direction the country was going in under the Federalists.
This letter created quite a stir when it was published, first in France and then in the United States. President Washington was extremely upset because he assumed that Jefferson was referring to him as one of the “Sampsons in the field”. And of course Hamilton, John Jay and John Adams all were assumed to be the people Jefferson was referring to.
There was quite a bit of anomosity between Jefferson and the other founders. In fact, John Adams was very jealous of the attention Jefferson got for the Declaration of Independence. In the margins of one of the books he owned, Adams wrote,
“The Declaration of Independence of 4 July 1776 contained Nothing but the Boston Declaration of 1772 and the Congress Declaration of 1774. Such are the Caprices of Fortune.”
and in the side margins of the same page,
“This Declaration of Rights was drawn by the little John Adams. The mighty Jefferson by the Dec. of Independence 4 July 1776 carried away the glory of both the great and the little.”
Handwritten annotations in Discourses on Davila : a series of papers, on political history. Written in the year 1790, and then published in the Gazette of the United States by an American citizen. By John Adams housed at the Boston Public Library, John Adams Collection.
It’s stuff like this that always makes me laugh when people tell us what the founders thought or believed. Like the founders were joined at the hip or something.
This was just a footnote, the mention of the name Mazzei, reminded me of Jefferson’s letter.
Use the Vattel, Luke…..
If we believed each and every claim that the founders thought thus and thus. meant thus and thus, and believed thus and thus, the only reasonable conclusion we could come to is that the founding fathers all suffered from multiple personality disorder of such magnitude that they would be otherwise capable of populating the whole of East Anglia by themselves.
My challenge is still open, I notice you seem to avoiding it, why?
How many times are words or phrases in the Constitution mentioned in Blackstone or Vattel. For example, how many times does Blackstone mention ex post facto laws versus how many times does Vattel mention ex post facto laws?
Use these items of the Constitution:
Ex post facto, bills of attainder, habeas corpus, letters of Marque, impeachment, pardons, “Offenses against the Law of Nations”, piracy, felonies, high seas, “natural born”
Here is another phrase from the Constitution to add to the list, “Corruption of Blood”.
How many times did Vattel reference “Corruption of Blood”?
“The end or aim of civil society is to procure for its citizens the necessities, the comforts, and the pleasures of life, and in general their happiness; to secure to each the peaceful enjoyment of his property
and a sure means of obtaining justice; and finally to defend the whole body against all external violence.” Vattel
Very Un-American…lol
Nature gives men are right to employ force, when it is necessary for the defense, and for the preservation of their rights…. A right of so momentous a nature – the right of judging whether the nation has real grounds of complaint, whether she is authorized to employ force, and justifiable in taking up arms, whether prudence will admit of such a step and whether the welfare of the state requires it – can only belong to the body of the nation or to the sovereign, her representative.” Vattel and the 2nd Amendment..
Very Un-American
§ 127. Of religion internal and external.
Religion consists in the doctrines concerning the Deity and the things of another life, and in the worship appointed to the honour of the Supreme Being. So far as it is seated in the heart, if is an affair of conscience, in which every one ought to be directed by his own understanding: but so far as it is external, and publicly established, it is an affair of state. [The Bill of Rights in the U. S. Constitution prohibits the establishment of religion.]
§ 114. Freedom of philosophical discussion.
I speak of the freedom of philosophical discussion, which is the soul of the republic of letters. … I know that liberty has its proper bounds — that a wise government ought to have an eye to the press, and not to allow the publication of scandalous productions, which attack morality, government, or the established religion. [The Bill of Rights in the U. S. Constitution guarantees the right to freedom of speech, including criticism of the government and religion. I believe that WorldNetDaily and the Post & Email blog would be the first against the wall in a republic governed by Mr. de Vattel.]
§ 122. Right of carrying off women.
… A nation cannot preserve and perpetuate itself, except by propagation. A nation of men has, therefore, a right to procure women, who are absolutely necessary to its preservation; and if its neighbours, who have a redundancy of females, refuse to give some of them in marriage to those men, the latter may justly have recourse to force….
§ 115. Marriages of aliens. (118)
There exists no natural impediment to prevent foreigners from contracting marriages in the state. But, if these marriages are found prejudicial or dangerous to a nation, she has a right, and is even in duty bound to prohibit them, or to subject to certain conditions the permission to contract them: and, as it belongs to the nation or to her sovereign to determine what appears most conducive to the welfare of the state, other nations ought to acquiesce in the regulations which any sovereign state has made on this head. Citizens are almost everywhere forbid to marry foreign wives of a different religion…
– Emerich de Vattel
Excerpts from “The wit and wisdom of Emerich de Vattel”
by DR. CONSPIRACY on MAY 23, 2010 in EMMERICH DE VATTEL
So let me get this straight.
You’re really….mnph…. I mean really…. snrklfrtch…. I mean you’re actually…. giggle…. trying to suggest that just because de Vattel (you’d think since you worship his every word you’d at least get his name right) happened to have a thought about the purpose of society, that was so common amongst political philosophers of the day that it could only be described as banal, that somehow proves that de Vattel was the rightful author of the US Constitution?
BWahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!
And with all of you drivel, you have still to show that any of the founders even considered de Vattel in the discussion of citizenship.
The founders were rather well read people (as mentioend above). Simply pointing to the fact that they may have read something, does not prove anything.
There is no debate in the legal community about de Vattel’s place in determining citizenship. Here’s another challenge you can ignore (the list is getting quite large). Show a single legal scholar in the past century that supported de Vattel as the source of citizenship in the US. You will ignore this because there is none. Don’t you think it odd the only one’s pushing that theory are a DUI attorney, an attorney whose made more money as a professional poker player than attorney, and a soon to be disbarred mail order attorney?
Since you are quoting from Vattel – show us his quote on habeas corpus or ex post facto or bills of attainder, or letters of Marque, or impeachment, or pardons, or “Offenses against the Law of Nations”, or piracy, or felonies, or high seas, or “natural born”, and of course “corruption of blood.”
These all are in the Constitution show us Vattel’s reference to them.
Are you really too stupid to realize that there were other philosphers who discussed the very same concepts? And some of them even wrote in English (perhaps you should google John Locke and see what comes up).
You are proving nothing except that you are a complete idiot. You are no close to proving de Vattel’s influence on anything.
Unfortunately, the only thing Dancing Rabbit has been able to show regarding his uneducated opinions on de Vattel’s importance in the framing of the Constitution, is that they, like his namesake, are only really good for a flavorless and stringy stew.
Dear Dancing Rabbit:
Liebniz? Leibniz!? Do you even know who Leibniz is, you blinkered bunny? Have you ever bothered to examine his work? Leibniz was not a political theorist, and there was no “Liebnizian network.” Leibniz was a mathematician and metaphysical philosopher. He had nothing to do with underwriting the revolutionary spirit of the colonies, and he most certainly did not inspire the phrase, “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” If you had even the slightest dash of intellectual curiosity, or any true knowledge of the American Revolution, you would know that it was the English Enlightenment philosopher John Locke who articulated the principle that all people had a natural right to defend their “life, health, liberty, or possessions” in the face of a tyrannical government. And it was Locke’s philosophy, not Leibniz’s, who inspired Thomas Jefferson to write in the Declaration of Independence that individuals share an inalienable right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
Before you pollute this site with intellectual excrement from Free Republic, take the time to fact check its spurious scholarship.
NEW JERSEY V. DELAWARE, 291 U. S. 361
Then, with Grotius and Vattel, came the notion of equality of division (Nys, …
244, citing Grotius, De Jure Belli et Pacis, and Vattel, Law of Nations), …
http://supreme.justia.com/us/291/361/case.html
SELECTIVE DRAFT LAW CASES, 245 U. S. 366
Vattel, Law of Nations, Book III, c. 1 & 2. To do more than state the
proposition is absolutely unnecessary in view of the practical illustration
afforded …
http://supreme.justia.com/us/245/366/case.html
SOSA v. ALVAREZ-MACHAIN et al
1883) (hereinafter Vattel) (footnote omitted), or “that code of public … See
Vattel 463-464. It was this narrow set of violations of the law of nations, …
http://supreme.justia.com/us/542/692/case.html
NEW JERSEY v. NEW YORK
1871); E. Vattel, Law of Nations § 208, p. 99 (J. Chitty 6th Am. ed. 1844). Thus
, even on the remote Pacific atoll mentioned in JUSTICE STEVENS’S dissent, …
http://supreme.justia.com/us/523/767/case.html
BROWN V. UNITED STATES, 12 U. S. 110
Vattel says that “the sovereign can neither detain the persons nor the property
of those subjects of the enemy who are within his dominions at the time of …
http://supreme.justia.com/us/12/110/case.html
KOHL V. UNITED STATES, 91 U. S. 367
Vattel, c. 20, 34; Bynk., lib. 2, c. 15; Kent’s Com. 338-340; Cooley on Const.
Lim. 584 et seq. But it is no more necessary for the exercise of the powers of…
http://supreme.justia.com/us/91/367/case.html
NEBRASKA V. IOWA, 143 U. S. 359
106-109; Vattel, Droit des Gens, liv. i, c. 22, s. … Vattel states the rule
thus, Book 1, c. 22, secs. 268-270: Page 143 U. S. 365 …
http://supreme.justia.com/us/143/359/case.html
WARE V. HYLTON, 3 U. S. 199
In support of this opinion he cited Vattel Lib. 3, c. 5, s. …. Vattel is the
only author relied on (or that can be found) to maintain the distinction …
http://supreme.justia.com/us/3/199/case.html
THE VENUS, 12 US 253 (1814) – US Supreme Court Cases from Justia …
The latter is styled by Vattel “domicile,” which he defines to be, “a habitation
….. A domicile, then, in the sense in which this term is used by Vattel, …
http://supreme.justia.com/us/12/253/case.html
GEOFROY V. RIGGS, 133 U. S. 258
“The interpretation, therefore,” says Vattel, “which would render a treaty null
and … Vattel, Book II, c. 17. As we read the article, it declares that, …
http://supreme.justia.com/us/133/258/case.html
SMITH V. MARYLAND, 59 U. S. 71
Vattel, b. 1, c. 20, s. 246; Corfield v. Coryell, 4 Wash. 376. It has been
exercised by many of the states. See Angell on Tide Waters, 145, 156, 170, …
http://supreme.justia.com/us/59/71/case.html
UNITED STATES, LYON V. HUCKABEE, 83 U. S. 414
Bedreechund, 1 Knapp’s Privy Council Cases 329; Vattel 365; 3 Phillmore’s
International Law 505. [Footnote 18]. Insurance Co. v. Bailey, 13 Wall. …
http://supreme.justia.com/us/83/414/case.html
JOHNSON V. EISENTRAGER, 339 U. S. 763
Vattel tells us: “If any of the subjects, whether military men or private
citizens, offend against the truce . . . , the delinquents should be compelled
to …
http://supreme.justia.com/us/339/763/case.html
NEW YORK V. MILN, 36 U. S. 102
Vattel, book 2, ch. 7, § 94. “The sovereign may forbid the entrance of his
territory either to foreigners in general or in particular cases or to certain
…
http://supreme.justia.com/us/36/102/case.html
FONG YUE TING V. UNITED STATES, 149 U. S. 698
Vattel says: “Every nation has the right to refuse to admit a foreigner into the
country, when he cannot enter without putting the nation in evident danger, …
http://supreme.justia.com/us/149/698/case.html
RESPUBLICA v. SPARHAWK
… afterwards, fell into their hands, was an event involuntary, and merely
accidental, in which case Vattel expressly says, no compensation shall be made.
…
http://supreme.justia.com/us/1/357/case.html
THE EXCHANGE V. MCFADDON, 11 U. S. 116
“It is impossible to conceive,” says Vattel,. “that a prince who sends an
ambassador or any other minister can have any intention of subjecting him to the
…
http://supreme.justia.com/us/11/116/case.html
HANDLY’S LESSEE V. ANTHONY, 18 U. S. 374
“In case of doubt,” says Vattel,. “every country lying upon a river is presumed
to have no other. Page 18 U. S. 380. limits but the river itself, …
http://supreme.justia.com/us/18/374/case.html
JONES V. UNITED STATES, 137 U. S. 202
This principle affords ample warrant for the legislation of Congress concerning
guano islands. Vattel, lib. 1, c. 18; Wheaton on International Law (8th ed. …
http://supreme.justia.com/us/137/202/case.html
The Prize Cases – US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez
“A civil war,” says Vattel,. “breaks the bands of society and government, or at
least suspends their force and effect; it produces in the nation two …
http://supreme.justia.com/us/67/635/case.html
John Locke had more influence on the Constitution that a dozen de Vattels
I popped over to Free Republic to see if they are all as ignorant as DancingRabbit, and I found that most of them are worst than the Wabbit. What a sick place and so full of hate, mostly hate for Obama, it’s irrational, I feel sorry for their famillies. Those people have serious issues (mental). When they ,like the Wabbit, pop in here they are totally unaware of how foolish their comments are. Evidently they don’t have mirrors in Birferstan.
And another thing, it’s hogwash to assert as Dancing Rabbit does that, “The American Revolution was the fruit of a struggle waged in Europe for self-government and the nation-state, which began with the Renaissance that was launched at the Council of Florence.”
The rise of the nation state represents the development of a shared national identity among previous disparate regions, which are ruled by an authoritarian monarch. The monarch symbolizes the nation and controls the state as a geopolitical entity. The nation-state does not represent “self-government” in the way that revolutionary leaders would recognize or approve. The leaders of the American Revolution were, of course, opposed to monarchical rule, and understood the concept of self-government to mean governance by the people, not governance by a king. Additionally, many of the founders favored the supremacy of individual states over limited federal government–essentially the exact opposite of the principles that characterized the nation-state.
Bugs Bunny cut and paste that quotation from Free Republic, and whoever posted it there cut and paste it from a pro-Lyndon LaRouche website (what a shocker!).
As for Franklin, he may have read de Vattel, but somehow he failed to mention de Vattel in his autobiography. Walter Isaacson’s recent bio of Franklin also fails to mention de Vattel.
As for Leibniz, he was no fan of revolution. If Bugs Bunny had actually done some research on Leibniz, he might have come across this from a letter which Leibniz wrote in 1695 (emphasis mine):
As for.. the great question of the power of sovereigns and the obedience their peoples owe them, I usually say that it would be good for princes to be persuaded that their people have the right to resist them, and for the people, on the other hand, to be persuaded to obey them passively. I am, however, quite of the opinion of Grotius, that one ought to obey as a rule, the evil of revolution being greater beyond comparison than the evils causing it.
Why should we thank him? Voltaire, Roussieu and Locke all addressed concepts that brought about revolution before De Vattel did.
Rickey:
Thanks for the citation to further repudiate Dancing Rabbit and his ilk. Lyndon LaRouche, eh? The folks at Free Republic are really scraping the bottom of the cesspool when they look to LaRouche for support.
It’s difficult to imagine how one could confuse Leibniz for Locke. I bet it went something like this: “I remember there was this philosopher guy who had something to do with all those famous dudes back then that did all that stuff, like with the Constipation and that Declaration of Indianapolis thingy that Jefferson Davis copied from the Manga Carter. But what was his name? It started with an “L,” but then what? Ouch! Brain hurt from thinking. Better just Google “philosophers last name L” and pick the one that comes up first.”
If DR is an act, it’s brilliant. That persona goes a looooooong way towards making birthers look incompetent and insane.
Absolutely. As someone once said, “You shall know them by their words.”
For all that Jefferson was very smart in some ways, he was also something of a nutter in others, prone to hysteria and flouncing.
At one point, I have to ask: how long can we repeat ad nauseam the same arguments about (1) Vattel’s irrelevance to the issue; and (2) the fact that Vattel dies not say what the birthers claim he did.
DR does not respond, does not engage, does not debate; like Rain Man he keeps repeating the same rubbishy mantra time after time.
I honestly think you should kick him out.
Of you could just ignore him.
“Do you understand what you are reading?” Acts 8:30b
So how many of those are actual citizenship cases? Which is what we were talking about to begin with. I could dig through and pull up many more cases that cite Lord Blackstone.
On the question of whether to kick Dancing Rabbit to the curb, I’m in favor of letting him stay. First, because I’m a pushover for fat, indolent, floppy-eared wabbits, and second, as Majority Will pointed out, Dancing Rabbit’s childish style and inane arguments allow everyone to see how vacuous birthers really are.
This was referenced by a commenter in the thread de Vattel for Dummies: cpwlsh June 19, 2009 at 4:08 pm #
Benjamin Franklin’s (a signer of our Constitution) letter to Charles W.F. Dumas, December 1775
“I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the Law of Nations. Accordingly, that copy which I kept (after depositing one in our own public library here, and send the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed) has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem for their author”
It is also referenced here:
http://www.schillerinstitute.org/fid_97-01/971_vattel.html Those of you who wrote about Locke may be interested in the article for that link. Here is the opening:
Part I
The American Revolution was a battle against the philosphophy of John Locke.
Emmerich de Vattel’s The Law of Nations was key in framing the United States
as the world’s first constitutional republic.
Another piece of information:
* Donald S. Lutz
* Collection: Founding Fathers’ Library
* School of Thought: Founding Fathers
* Topic: American Revolution & Constitution
The Most Commonly Read Books of the Founding Generation
The Founding Fathers of the American Constitution made it clear what authors and texts had influenced their own thinking on the idea of liberty. Donald S. Lutz has examined the speeches, letters, journalism, and theoretical works of the founding generation in order to draw up a composite “library catalog” of that generation. His list includes most of the texts on the Goodrich Seminar Room list and a few more besides. Lutz’s “top 40” texts (actually 37) by frequency of citation by the founding generation are listed below.
http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?Itemid=259&id=438&option=com_content&task=view
Locke is 4, de Vattel is 29.
I find your reference to a rebellion against Locke to be puzzling considering his views on personal property being a right, the social contract, etc. But your list shows that De Vattel was lower on the list of influence than those we’ve already mentioned, Lord Blackstone, John Locke, Rousseau, Sir Edward Coke, etc. Just reading the list you provided I come across more popular names like Thomas Hobbes, David Hume, Montesquieu, etc.
Are you expecting an argument? I don’t know why you find my reference to the Locke piece “puzzling”; it was for those involved in the Locke discussion, another view point to dissect. As for the list, it wasn’t to show that Vattel surged in importance, but where he stood in comparison to others, which is 29th.
No i just found it curious. I read the piece that overly stressed De Vattel greater than his actual impact and tried to downplay Locke. The author however seems to make Locke more important to the argument. This is what we’ve been saying De Vattel was obscure compared to those like Blackstone whom the founders relied on quite a bit.
I think the evidence shows he was not obscure to the educated at the time, and that he was respected and looked to for inspiration, even if they disagreed with him. [I found another letter yesterday that mentions Vattel and two others, calling them good people with divergent views- the topic not having to do with citizenship. Jefferson said that one would have to follow his own heart and conscience to decide with whom to agree.] But there is a lack of evidence that the founders adopted his view of citizenship. It would have been NICE if there were an outright rejection, rather than an implied one.
Do you want another challenge?
How many times has Blackstone been quotes by the Supreme Court versus how many times Vattel has been quoted?
I know how scared you are of challenges, but how about this one/
And of cours, there is always the original challenge:
How many times are words or phrases in the Constitution mentioned in Blackstone or Vattel. For example, how many times does Blackstone mention ex post facto laws versus how many times does Vattel mention ex post facto laws?
Use these items of the Constitution:
Ex post facto, bills of attainder, habeas corpus, letters of Marque, impeachment, pardons, “Offenses against the Law of Nations”, piracy, felonies, high seas, “natural born”, “Corruption of Blood”.
Again, why do I belive you’ll chicken out on these?
I’d say being 29 down the list would make him quite obscure and they didn’t use Vattel’s ideas say for instance the restriction of owning arms, restriction of the press, establishment of religion. These are all ideas De Vattel pushed which we didn’t use. Lord Blackstone had more importance as shown by things we used like impeachment, ex post facto, etc. Implied? They rejected his view of citizenship there was no implication
“It would have been NICE if there were an outright rejection, rather than an implied one.”
I’ve searched the Constitution over and over again and I can’t find the line that explicitly demands that the President of the United States must be born to two citizen parents in order to be eligible to hold the office or the line that excludes a candidate who possesses dual citizenship.
Is there a special edition of the Constitution available only to a fringe minority?
Maybe we are not looking at obscure in the same way, a matter of semantics. I believe they had copies of Vattel’s work and read it. He was well-known at the time. The site that generated the list states this:
Emer de Vattel (1714-1767) was one of the foremost theorists of natural law in the 18th century. His writings were widely read in the American colonies and had a profound impact on the thinking of the framers of the American constitution.
http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php&person=3987
Vattel was christened “Emer.” Modern authors have mistakenly given him a German name, “Emerich.”- that was from another page of the site.
I’ll check later for any response.
The Schiller Institute was started by Lyndon LaRouche’s wife, so I would take anything they put out with several grains of salt. The Institute has been accused of anti-semitism and of being a dangerous cult.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2004/oct/31/germany.highereducation
While Benjamin Franklin did indeed write that letter to Charles Dumas, there is scant evidence that the Continental Congress paid much attention to Vattel. For example, The Library of Congress collection “Documents from the Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention, 1774-1789” contains no references whatsoever to Vattel. You can search the collection here:
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/collections/continental/
There also is no reference to “The Law of Nations.” There is just this, from 1785:
OFFICE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS, 13th MAY, 1785:
The SECRETARY of the UNITED STATES for the Department of FOREIGN AFFAIRS, to whom was referred a Letter of the 21st March last, from Richard Soderstrom,REPORTS as his Opinion,
THAT no state is obliged by the laws of nations to receive or admit consuls from any foreign state; and consequently every sovereign has a right to admit them on such terms and conditions only as he may think proper.
Note that the operative phrase is “laws of nations” (not LAW of Nations), and it is not capitalized, so clearly it is not a reference to Vattel’s book.
I agree with, there too many references to him to say he was obscure. BUt there were others, like John Locke, who discussed the same ideas..
On your list you include Dr. Donald S. Lutz of the University of Houston. In the 1970’s, he looked through a number of founder quotes to try to find who the founders quoted the most. The list included 1) Bible, 2) baron de Montesquieu, 3) Blackstone, and 4) Locke, in that order.
The constitution is full of words and phrases that come from English law. The founders didn’t change the definitions of these words or phrases. If you went to England and asked a lawyer legislaturor what ex post facto meant, he would know. If you asked him what impeachment was, he would know. If you asked him what a “bill of attainder” was, he would know. And, if you asked him what the term “natural born” meant, he would know that too. The framers made changes, they outlawed ex post facto laws, and bills of attainder (footnote: one of the most famous colonial bills of attainder was issued by Jefferson, who later agreed such bills were wrong), but everytime they made such a change they told “the voters”. They didn’t change the meaning of the terms, just how they were applied.
So, charo do you think if the framers and founders had changed the definition of natural born from only jus soli to both jus soli and jus sanguinis, that they would have said something? Maybe written down the new definition? How would someone in New York reading the Constitution for the first time, know that “natural born” didn’t mean what it use to mean?
Consider the words of Supreme Court Justice and former President of the United States William Howard Taft,
“The language of the Constitution cannot be interpreted safely except by reference to the common law and to British institutions as they were when the instrument was framed and adopted. The statesmen and lawyers of the Convention who submitted it to the ratification of the Conventions of the thirteen States were born and brought up in the atmosphere of the common law, and thought and spoke in its vocabulary. They were familiar with other forms of government, recent and ancient, and indicated in their discussions earnest study and consideration of many of them, but when they came to put their conclusions into the form of fundamental law in a compact draft, they expressed them in terms of the common law, confident that they could be shortly and easily understood.’, from Ex Parte Grossman
And the words of Justice Antonin Scalia,
““What I look for in the Constitution is precisely what I look for in a statute: the original meaning of the text, not what the original draftsmen intended” (A Matter of Interpretation, Federal Courts and the Law, 1997).
And in U.S. v. Heller,
“In interpreting this text, we are guided by the principle that “[t]he Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning.” . . . Normal meaning may of course include an idiomatic meaning, but it excludes secret or technical meanings that would not have been known to ordinary citizens in the founding generation”
And also from Heller,
“Blackstone, whose works, we have said, “constituted the preeminent authority on English law for the founding generation,” Alden v. Maine, 527 U. S. 706, 715 (1999), cited the arms provision of the Bill of Rights as one of the fundamental rights of Englishmen.”
There isn’t any evidence that the founders even considered Vattel’s view of citizenship. There is no evidence that the founders ever explicitly rejected Vattel’s notion that it is okay to invade another country and abduct its women, either, but I am confident that the founders never gave that one a second thought.
I won’t reference the site any more. I looked briefly at the background given on the site.
“I am much obliged (eyes rolling) by the kind present (Christian charity… Christian charity… Christ…) you have made us of your edition of Vattel (the French idiot). It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the Law of Nations (and discard it). Accordingly, that copy which I kept (after depositing one in our own public library here, and send the other to the College of Massachusetts Bay, as you directed (where it continues to draw dust) has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress (when they need a good laugh), now sitting, who are much pleased with your notes and preface, and have entertained a high and just esteem (laughter) for their author”
Charo:
The two points which I think are far more important than the relative knowledge, ignorance or understanding of Vattel’s works are:
1) his relevance to the matter at hand. I think Vattel’s lack of relevance if not downright rejection has been discussed here far better than I can do.
2) Vattel clearly said that in countries following jus sanguinis,a child needed only one citizen parent, the father, later footnoted to add the mother, to be a native; he also recognized that other countries followed just soli, in which case the place of birth prevailed
Please tell me how this helps the birthers’ argument?
The notion that Vattel required TWO citizen parents is pure hogwash, a lie perpetrated by those driven by a racist agenda.
The Schiller Institute has been accused of spreading antisemitic conspiracy theories. An internal London Metropolitan Police (Scotland Yard) letter, obtained by the BBC’s Newsnight during an investigation into the death of Jeremiah Duggan says: “The Schiller Institute and the LaRouche Youth Movement … blames the Jewish people for the Iraq war and all the other problems in the world. Jeremiah’s lecture notes and bulletins showed the antisemitic nature of [the] ideology.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schiller_Institute#Allegations_of_antisemitism
Does the Schiller Institute consult with Mel Gibson?
You could have lead with that and saved some time.
1. Doc said this:
Dr. Conspiracy: What Dancing Rabbit claims, wholly unsupported, is that “most” most of the founders had read the 1758 edition of de Vattel, which would be remarkable since it was in French.
1. I think he is wrong to assume that it was unlikely for the founders to have read the edition because it was in French. I gave evidence.
2. Vattel was not obscure, IMO. I gave evidence to support my statement.
3. Thread conversations stray.. I am to be faulted?
I think this shows that de Vattel implicitly recognized the importance of a diverse gene pool (although he had no knowledge of the mechanism) for the vitality of a nation. This diversity cannot be obtained by the inbreeding and disdain for foreigners that birthers & America firsters espouse. America’s strength lies in its diversity.
“Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says, “the citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or indigenes, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow trie condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.”
“The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the state, while they reside there, and they are obliged to defend it, because it 290*] grants “them protection, though they do not participate in all the rights of citizens. They enjoy only the advantages which the laws or custom gives them. The perpetual inhabitants are those who have received the right of perpetual residence. These are a kind of citizens of an inferior order, and are united and subject to the society, without participating in all its advantages.”
“The domicile is the habitation fixed in any place, with an intention of always staying there. A man does not, then, establish his domicile in any place, unless he makes sufficiently known his intention of fixing there, either tacitly or by an express declaration. However, this declaration is no reason why, if he afterwards changes his mind, he may not remove his domicile elsewhere. Tn this sense, he who stops, even for a long time, in a place, for the management of his affairs, has only a simple habitation there, but has no domicile.”
A domicile, then, in the sense in which this term is used by Vattel, requires not only actual residence in a foreign country, but “an intention of always staying there.” Actual residence without this intention, amounts to no more than “simple habitation.”
Chief Justice John Marshall, The Venus (1814)
I’m sure that many of you are unaware that Vattel’s work was one of the three most published works available to post-revolutionary lawyers and law students.
In addition, for those who are obsessed with using English common law to determine the meaning of the Constitution, it should be recognized that Vattel’s work was made part of the comon law of England in 1764.
And all this time I thought English Common Law was much older than 1764… Silly me…
Except for this:
§ 115. Marriages of aliens. (118)
There exists no natural impediment to prevent foreigners from contracting marriages in the state. But, if these marriages are found prejudicial or dangerous to a nation, she has a right, and is even in duty bound to prohibit them, or to subject to certain conditions the permission to contract them: and, as it belongs to the nation or to her sovereign to determine what appears most conducive to the welfare of the state, other nations ought to acquiesce in the regulations which any sovereign state has made on this head. Citizens are almost everywhere forbid to marry foreign wives of a different religion…
I’ve searched the Constitution yet another time now and I still can’t find the line that explicitly demands that the President of the United States must be born to two citizen parents in order to be eligible to hold the office or the line that excludes a candidate who possesses dual citizenship.
Is there an extra special birther edition that supersedes the one in the National Archives?
OK, I’ll bite… How? In what court case?
You don’t mention the other two. Why not?
Was Blackstone among them. It was a standard text in U.S. law schools. St. George Tucker used it as a textbook at Wiliam and Mary. In fact, his lectures on Blackstone became the basis for his work “BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES: WITH NOTES OF REFERENCE, TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS, OF THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES; AND OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA.” 1803.
Funny, in his analysis of Blackstone and English Law and how they differed from US law, he never mentions the change from Blackstone’s description of what is “natural born”.
What was it that Blackstone said about natural born subjects? Oh yeah, “THE children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges”
So when specifically did the founders change the definition? They must have written it down somewhere. There are 85 Federalists Papers which dissect the new Constitution in virtually every detail. And in one of them, they even talk about the Presidential salary. But not one of them talks about the change in the definition of natural born or its relation to the eligibility of the President. Why not?
It is almost as if the founders and framers just assumed that everyone already knew what it meant.
That is not entirely true. As I said before, Vattel was born and died a Prussian. Only after his death did Neuchatel become a part of Switzerland, first with the King of Prussia as a constitutional monarch, later (after 1848) as a fully democratic canton.
Since Neuchatel was predominantly French-speaking, and Vattel’s mother tongue was French, I have no doubt that he was indeed christened Emer (de) Vatel (note the one t). However, when he later became a diplomat (working mostly for Saxony by the way), it was normal that as a citizen of the German Empire and Prussia, he was addressed as Emmerich von (or even van, like Beethoven) Vattel. Only after his death and Neuchatel becoming Swiss, did de Vattel become the norm. Even today, law books still refer to van Vattel and von Vattel. Just google ( in the correct way, with quotation marks). Basically, the guy’s family name was Vat(t)el, and de, von or van were just “ennobling” embellishments.
Until recently, people did not give a hoot about the right spelling of his name (even the double m in Emmerich is not consistently used), because it only came up among specialists of law history anyway.
The fact that he was Prussian and German, and not Swiss, is important, because it explains why his citizenship rule depends on ius sanguinis and not ius solis. Though Lupin is correct in saying that even Vattel’s first edition never said what birfers are claiming it said. (As I said before, every English version which claims to be a translation of Droits des Gens II has mistranslated the word “parens”).
*clap* *clap* *clap*
Not only that, the Renaissance began with the efforts of a private citizen, Cosimo il Vecchio de’ Medici, and a handful of his friends and proteges. There was no “Council of Florence” unless one counted the Five Hundred, the leading citizens who met every few months to elect governmental officials.
Dancing Rabbit not only needs civics lessons, s/he/it needs to take a refresher course in European history.
Mike,
The case you would be looking for is Triquet and Others v. Bath. The declaration was made by Lord Mansfield.
gorefan,
The three most popular books on civil law that were widely read by post-revolution law students were (in order of numbers published)
“An Essay on Crimes and Punishments” by Cesare Beccaria, (1778) –(sold by R. Bell, next door to St. Paul’s Church, on Third-Street in Philadelphia, PA.)
“The Principles of Natural Law” by Jean Jacques Burlamaqui , (1748)
“The Law of Nations” by Emmerich de Vattel, (1758)
Thanks for the additional history.
As has been previously noted on several occasions, Alexander Hamilton suggested that the Executive need only be a “born a citizen of the United States”. Since that was not accepted as sufficient by the Framers, it must be assumed to have a different meaning. The Framers were very careful about the words they chose.
More on the “Council of Florence” –
It’s actually better known as the Council of Basel. It was a church council intended to settle theological questions, attempt to reunify the Eastern and Western churches, and help promote other Italian cities against the influence of Venice. Not only was it not the “beginning” of the Renaissance, it was invited to Florence by Cosimo de’ Medici for its last year or two, when he was already patronizing humanists like hagiographer Antonio degli Agli. Medici’s interest in the classics predated any contact with the Council in any of its three venues (Basel, Ferrara, and Florence).
Once again, Dancing Rabbit is, at best, badly misinterpreting the historical record, if not outright lying.
Nunya’s comment makes three points, points which are very different in form.
First there is the citation of de Vattel by John Marshall in The Venus. That’s a citation that anyone can check and verify the context.
The second regards the relative popularity of de Vattel’s work in post Revolutionary America. I am aware of this claim, but I have never seen it accompanied by any evidence. Unless Nunya is just carrying lies for someone, I’m sure he will provide the evidence to back this up.
The third is an assertion (and a rather remarkable one) that de Vattel’s Law of Nations was incorporated into English common law in 1764. In practice, I don’t even know how such a thing even makes sense. About the only possibility I can think of is that come case cited de Vattel in that year and the birthers are making a wild ❗ exaggeration. Perhaps Nunya will provide a citation to see whether we should offer him some water to put out the fire in his pants.
And books read by post-Revolutionary law students are relevant how? Please note that the Constitutional Convention took place only four years after the end of the Revolution and was attended by mature men, not twentysomethings who had completed their legal training between 1783 and 1787.
A couple of comments.
The Venus case was not about citizenship, it was about the property rights of U.S. citizens who were residing in a country that the United States was at war with. Three business partners (named Maitland, McGregor and Jones) were natural born British subjects who emigrated to the U.S. and were naturalized here. Sometime after becoming U.S. citizens, they moved back to England and were in the business of shipping goods to the U.S. The War of 1812 broke out shortly after they shipped a large quantity of goods to the U.S. aboard the ship Venus The ship was still enroute to the U.S. when the war broke out. The ship was owned by Maitland and a man named James Lenox. The Venus was captured by an American cruiser and both the ship and its contents were confiscated.
The issue before the court was whether the U.S. had the right to confiscate the ship and its contents. The Court ruled that the ship and its contents could be confiscated. The ruling largely was based upon the Court’s finding that owners of the ship and its goods were domiciled in Britain, a country with which the U.S. was at war.
Marshall’s opinion was a partial dissent. The issue was not whether the owners of the ship and its good were U.S. citizens, but whether they were domiciled in Great Britain. Marshall cited Vattel not on the matter of citizenship, but on the matter of what constitutes a domicile. Marshall felt that the owners were not domiciled in Britain because they had never explicitly stated that they intended to stay there.
The majority of the Court disagreed with the Chief Justice.
Actually. England recognized the law of nations much earlier then that. For example, in 1689, King William III and Queen Mary declared war on France. Among the reasons for war included this:
“But that which must nearly touch us, is his unchristian prosecution of many of our English Protestant subjects in France, for matters of religion, contrary to the law of nations, and express treaties;”
So even though they recognized the law of nations, their individual subjects were made such by the laws of England. And that did not require two parents who were subjects
“citizen at birth” would have include children of citizens born in foreign lands, which was English Law at the time. The framers wanted citizens born in the country. But they never required two citizen parents.
For the umpteenth time,
James Madison, 1789,
“It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general, place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will, therefore, be unnecessary to investigate any other.”
Place of birth is what is the criteria for allegiance in the United States, it is “unnecessary to investigate any other.”
So, the framers did not want children of U.S. citizens born in other countries to be President. Why not? If they believed that blood made allegiance, then where they were born would not matter. It’s because they believed that place of birth made allegiance that they felt the need for a “natural born” citizen. And since they never expressed a desire for both parents of “natural born” citizens to be citizens, they could not have considered it a requirement.
You said it they chose their words carefully, had they wanted to make an exception to the term “natural born” they would have. For example:
‘No person except a natural born Citizen [whose parents are citizens], or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.’
But they knew the meaning of natural born and they knew that the citizenry knew the definition of natural born. Especially, those in Georgia;
“Also we do, for ourselves and successors, declare, by these presents, that all and every the persons which shall happen to be born within the said province, and every of their children and posterity, shall have and enjoy all liberties, franchises and immunities of free denizens and natural born subjects, within any of our dominions, to all intents and purposes, as if abiding and born within this our kingdom of Great-Britain, or any other of our dominions” Charter of Georgia : 1732
One cannot be “born a citizen” if not born on U.S. soil. The only way for the foreign-born child to acquire U.S. citizenship is by naturalization.
I know this has been a topic of great confusion. However, the answer is easily found by looking into the origin of power needed to make it happen. Congress is limited to making citizens of aliens. On cannot be born a citizen if it takes an Act of Congress to relieve them of their foreign disability. We only need to look at the preamble to the Naturalization Act of 1795 to see it explicitly stated that the Act carries the ability of Congress to its full extent. Congress made sure to note that because the previous Act had clearly overstepped the authority of Congress.
When Hamilton drafted his constitution, naturalization was done by the each individual states.
The framers would have been familar with English law which made “natural born” subjects of children born to British subjects outside the realm.
In fact, during the debates in congress over the 1790 Naturalization Act, the one that contains the phrase “natural born”, Representative Burke says,
“The case of children of American parents born abroad ought to be provided for, as was done in the case of English parents, in the 12th year of William III.“ Debates in Congress February 4,1790.
That the Law of Nations, in its full extent, is a part of the law of England was the view of Blackstone (Commentaries, 1765, Bk. IV, ch. 5, p. 67) and of Lords Talbot and Mansfield in the eighteenth century (Triquet v. Bath, 1764, 3 Burr. 1478, and Scott, 6; and Heathfield v. Chilton, 1767, 4 Burr. 2015, and Scott, 189), as also of Lords Ellenborough and Stowell {Wolf v. Oxholm, 1817, K. B., M. and S. 92, and Scott, 496; The Maria, 1799, 1 Rob. 350, and Scott, 858; and the Recovery, 1807, 6 Rob. 348) in the early part of the nineteenth century.
http://books.google.com/books?id=i0uuAAAAMAAJ&dq=The%20essentials%20of%20international%20public%20law%20By%20Amos%20Shartle%20Hershey&pg=PA9#v=onepage&q&f=false
Also in the debate over the Naturalization Act, Representative Jackson said,
“It was observed yesterday, Mr. Chairman, that we could not modify or confine our terms of naturalization: that we could not admit an alien to the rights of citizenship progressively. I shall take the liberty of supporting the contrary doctrine, which I contend for, by reference to the very accurate commentator on the laws of England, Justice Blackstone I, 10. “Naturalization,” says he, “cannot be performed but by an act of Parliament; for by this an alien is put in exactly the same state as if he had been born in the King’s legiance, except only, that he is incapable, as well as a denizen, of being a member of the Privy Council, or Parliament, holding offices, grants, &c. No bill for naturalization can be received in either House of Parliament without such disabling clause in it.” So that here we find, in the nation from which we derive most of our ideas on this subject, not only that citizens are made progressively, but that such a mode is absolutely, necessary to be pursed in every act of Parliament for the naturalization of foreigners.”
Congressman Jackson is saying that England is the country from which they got their ideas on naturalization. And under English law, a child born to English subjects outside the realm were “natural born” subjects.
I agree with Representative Burke. I think Congress should provide for children born abroad. However, having established a central government with limited powers, the only thing Congress could do to provide for such foreign-born children was to naturalize them.
I doubt you would disagree that without the naturalization statute those children born abroad would not be U.S. citizens.
If not under the authority to provide for naturalization, what other authority granted to the federal government could be used to grant them citizenship?
They are referring to the concepts of the Law of Nations, not specifically to Vattel’s book .
Again from 1689, King William III and Queen Mary declared war on France. Among the reasons for war included this:
“But that which must nearly touch us, is his unchristian prosecution of many of our English Protestant subjects in France, for matters of religion, contrary to the law of nations, and express treaties;”
Vattel was born in 1714.
So show us a quote from another law of nations author that says natural born citizens must have two citizen parents.
I think you are missing the point.
You brought up Hamilton’s draft and it’s reference to “citizens at birth”, I’m showing you that the English Laws, known to the framers had a provision for “subjects at birth”.
The Constitution recognizes two types of citizens – natural born and naturalized. A representative had to either natural born or naturalized, a Senator had to be either natural born or naturalized, but the President could only be natural born.
The law of nations chapter XIX..citizen parents and citizenship of the father comes from the Roman Law in Gaius..
it is called Lex Mensia..if the roman woman marries a foreigner..the child becomes a foreigner.
The following is from the Legal Zoom web site. I found it to be interesting.
A quick lesson on U.S. citizenship. America follows the English common law rule of “right of soil.” In short, citizenship is determined by one’s place of birth. As such, those born in the U.S. or its territories (like Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands and Guam), are American citizens regardless of their parents’ citizenship status.
What you might not know is the borders for citizenship. Those born within U.S. ports and harbors or within 12 nautical miles of U.S. borders are also American citizens. Even babies born on planes flying over the U.S. or its territories acquire U.S. citizenship. The ship or plane’s country of origin makes no difference regarding citizenship.
However, U.S. installations in foreign countries are not considered part of the United States. So, delivering a baby at a U.S. naval base or embassy in a foreign country does not entitle the baby to U.S. citizenship.
Although the “citizenship by birth” rules have been complex, the February 2001 Child Citizenship Act (CCA) simplified the process. Now, a child who is under the age of 18, was born outside the U.S., and has at least one U.S. citizen parent automatically acquires U.S. citizenship upon entry into the country as an immigrant. No further paperwork is necessary. The parent may request a Certificate of Citizenship and U.S. Passport for the child if proof of the baby’s American-ness is desired.
But this process only applies to children permanently residing in the U.S. If the child is under 18, was born outside the United States, but lives abroad in the physical and legal custody of a U.S. citizen parent or U.S. citizen grandparent, the parent or grandparent must apply for naturalization of the child. In addition, more criteria must be met.
The U.S. citizen parent or grandparent must have been physically present in the U.S. for five years before the child’s birth, at least two of which were after age fourteen. Further, the child must be temporarily present in the U.S. for the naturalization process and to recite the oath of allegiance. Of course, if the child is too young to understand the oath, this requirement may be waived.
At this naturalization ceremony, the foreign-born, foreign-resident babies gain not only a certificate of citizenship but also membership into an exclusive club. The Constitution rules that only “natural born” citizens can hold our highest office, so it seems these new Americans won’t grow up to be President either. The regulations suggest parents who contemplate baby’s future run for the White House may want to consider permanent residence in the United States after the birth of little George or Hilary.
As with other areas of immigration and naturalization in this post-9/11 world, the guidelines change often. As such, these rules only apply to those children born on or after the effective date of the CCA. The law in place at the time of the child’s birth governs immigration, so research carefully.
If you are expecting a child abroad and want to be sure of your baby’s citizenship, check with your local embassy for the latest laws. In any case, you should register your child’s birth with the embassy as soon as possible as the first step in establishing your child’s claim to U.S. citizenship at birth.
Also, you’ll be on your way to making sure you and your child can wave the Stars and Stripes next Fourth of July, vote together when the little one is 18, and perhaps, if you’ve thought ahead, tread the campaign trail.
.
Gaius also refers to two Roman citizens the child becomes citizen.
there are several US Supreme Court cases..the Court quoted Roman Law from Gaius..and the Institutes….
And the Court has directly said that the Constitution is framed in the language of English Common Law. They’ve said this mutliple times, and there’s literally hundreds of cases where the court looks back to English Common Law for guidance, including dozens of cases on Citizenship. The most famous being U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark.
So, if your argument is that the court looks back to this body, then you’re going to have to acknowledge that the Court has also looked back to English Common Law for guidance on things, and specifically guidance on citizenship.
Greek Law Obama is a foreigner
Roman Law..coming from Gaius and the Institutes..Obama is a foreigner.
Law of Nations Obama is a foreigner.
Constitution..a Hybrid cannot be a natural born citizen.
And I’m showing you that the law of nations was well-known to the Framers.
The majority of the Executive’s power is in dealing with foreign relations. That means international law. The most recognized complete work of the time on international relations was Vattel’s. I consider it ludicrous to avoid Vattel’s influence when it comes to Article II of our Constitution. It also makes sense as to why the Executive needed to be something different than just a native born citizen, or born a citizen.
The “pursuit of happiness” in our Declaration of Independence came from Vattel. The adopted belief that an unconstitutional act is void came from Vattel. In 1793, Thomas Jefferson relied on the acceptance of Vattel’s work in his letter to Genet.
Vattel has been forgotten because of the creation of positive law. The origins of that positive law, in regard to international relations, were inspired by Vattel.
Of course they can be born a citizen, if they are not born on U.S. Soil. Take a look at 8 USC 1401. I’ll give you several instances.
1. a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person
2. a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;
3. a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;
4. a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person (A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or (B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This provison shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date;
Those are 4 examples of people not born on the soil of the United States, but still born a Citizen.
So if they were so careful, why did they use a phrase from the English common law, if they didn’t mean it that way?
Dancing Rabbit,
U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (an actual case having to do with Citizenship)
“The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except insofar as this is done by the affirmative declaration that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” In this as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution.”
It is ridiculous to cite references without showing the chain of reasoning that connects them. It is gaps in logic like this which damn the birther thesis to crankdom.
Greek and Roman law you wouldn’t be a citizen if you didn’t serve in the military or your parents didn’t. This is how you try to interpret things.
Precisely how many framers did you show that it was well known to?
dunstvangeet,
You do realize that you just cited an Act of Congress in support of your position, but failed to cite any portion of the Constitution in which the authority you suggest would have been granted, don’t you?
If you define naturalization, and accept that as a power granted to Congress, you can only arrive at a conclusion that children born abroad must have been naturalized at birth.
If you are relying on some other power of Congress that would permit them to make someone born outside the U.S. a citizen, could you please cite the relevant authority?
DancingRabbit: JEFFRIS V. EAST OMAHA LAND CO., 134 U. S. 178
In the Roman law. it was said in the Institutes of Gaius, Book II, § 70: ”
Alluvion is an addition of soil to land by a river so gradual that in short …
http://supreme.justia.com/us/134/178/case.html
This case was about property rights issues not citizenship. This has nothing to do with what we’re talking about unless you’re claiming Obama is property
Which naturalization act was that?
I have read everything I could get my hands on from early writing on this subject and, Like Jackson’s comment, they all look to the common law and do not mention de Vattel.
Go to Farrands in the Congressional Records circa 1787…do a search “Vattel”
If Vattel does not show I will never post here again.
The US Code of Laws defines a “National and Citizen of the United States at Birth” as a person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”
DrC have u read Vattel’s Law of Nations?
dunstvangeet,
You do know that not all “common law” is the common law of England, don’t you?
I can fully understand the confusion. After all, most states adopted the common law of England so that they would have laws until superceded by legislative acts. However, the United States never adopted the common law of England into the Constitution or by Act of Congress.
This becomes very confusing because SCOTUS hears cases involving disputes between members of different states. In doing so, the laws of that state (including the common law of England) are introduced and decided upon.
After the declaration of Independence, and before ratification of the U.S. Constitution, we had judges in the states making decisions. Those decisions became “common law”.
Wikipedia has a adequate page on “common law”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law
Did the word national exist in 1787?
Many here seem to consider Wong Kim Ark to be something more than it is. I don’t expect you to take my word for it, but I think you would that of a recognized Professor of Constitutional Law.
Jonathan Turley: http://jonathanturley.org/2010/09/14/who-is-a-citizen/
The civility was certainly nice; however, the research is not very deep. The Michigan Law review articles on McCain’s eligibility were much better.
There would be a public record (Certificate of Naturalization) of any person who acquired citizenship through naturalization. If there is no such public record and the person has US citizenship, they are a citizen of the United States at birth. There is no such category in the law as “Naturalized at birth.”
The law of the land is codied in the US Code, Title 8, Chapter 12, Subchapter III, Part I, Section 1401: “Nationals and Citizens of the United States at Birth.”
The reason it was posted was to show the USSC referred to Roman Law and directly to Gaius it is not the only time they did.
The USSC quoted a Roman Law in Gaius..if one looks carefully in the same law..guess what..Obama is a foreigner based on the citizenship of his father.
At the time of the revolution the most relevent British Act was probably the British Nationality Act 1730 (Clarifying an Act of 1707)
“That all Children born out of the Ligeance of the Crown of England, or of Great Britain, or which shall hereafter be born out of such Ligeance, whose Fathers were or shall be natural-born Subjects of the Crown of England, or of Great Britain, at the Time of the Birth of such Children respectively, shall and may, by virtue of the said recited Clause in the said Act of the seventh Year of the Reign of her said late Majesty, and of this present 7 Ann. c. 5. s. 3.Act, be adjudged and taken to be, and all such Children are hereby declared to be natural-born Subjects of the Crown ofGreat Britain, to all Intents, Constructions and Purposes whatsoever”
http://www.uniset.ca/naty/BNA1730.htm
There was also a British Nationality Act 1772 which extended this an extra generation, and several earlier Acts which were arguably still in force.
Yes. It appears, for example, in The Federalist Papers.
Yes, most words in the English language have existed for quite a number of millennia.
However more to the point, the US Constitution was not ratified until June 21, 1788.
No you can’t jump from one issue being property rights to say all of a sudden roman law must apply across the board on something like citizenship. That’s an incorrect assumption. You have shown no correlation to citizenship law
Yes, but Turley never really address what he feels that Wong did do.
“Conversely, nations like Germany follow jus sanguinis, establishing citizenship by one’s ancestors or connections to the country as opposed to merely birth location. Other countries have a hybrid approach. The United Kingdom, for instance, requires that the parents be legal residents.
For its part, the U.S. Supreme Court has never directly ruled on the issue of birthright citizenship. In 1898, in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the court found that the child of Chinese immigrants was still a citizen under the 14th Amendment because he was born on U.S. territory. However, his parents were here legally as permanent residents.”
And Turley never addresses the 2 parents nor what type of citizen a person would be if they were born in the US but had parents who were not citizens. So to reference this article leaves a lot to be desired.
Turley said:
But that’s not the point. The decision in Wong takes the chain of reasoning back to Calvin’s Case, as did the much earlier Lynch v. Clarke. This is why even if Wong didn’t decide every which-way of birthright citizenship Turley says that a court today would rule in favor of it.
You spend all your time on “gotcha.” You should spend more time on reading the mainstream of legal thought on this question.
All one has to do is read the appellate briefs and the lower court’s decision to see that the supreme court upheld the lower court decision in the case
If you read a little further you’ll see why they quoted it:
“The same rule was introduced into English jurisprudence..”
What are you going to do in ’12, when Jindal runs?
There is a saying that goes: if all you have is a hammer, then every problem looks like a nail.
All the birthers have is Vattel.
Wong Kim Ark was enough of a precedent for the Indiana Court of Appeals to rule in an Obama eligibility suit: “Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States natural-born citizens.”—Indiana Court of Appeals, “Ankeny et. al. v The Governor of Indiana, Mitch Daniels,” Nov. 12, 2009
That Court decision has direct and tangible relation to the issues under discussion here.
Dr. Conspiracy,
Why do you consider all opinions adverse to yours to be a “gotcha”?
Lynch v. Clark was a decision of New York. It is not binding precedent of the United States. In addition, that court could only rule on who is a citizen of the state of New York. The court may have stated more, but the limitations of that court are clearly recognized.
Even though Professor Turley thinks the court would “in all likelihood” rule in favor of birthright citizenship, that doesn’t make it settled law. It goes further and clearly establishes the fact that it is not settled law.
Does Wong Kim Ark apply to Obama? No. His father was not permanently residing here. He was here on a student visa. That means he had agreed to leave before his visa expired. Upon marrying a U.S. citizen, he could have applied for citizenship, or to become a permanent resident. I have seen nothing to indicate that he did.
I’m not taking a side in this debate. All I am doing is recognizing that the law in regard to who is a natural-born citizen has not been settled. I can’t say that Obama is or is not a natural-born citizen. That is something that should be left for the Court to decide. There is enough evidence to establish that both sides have meritorious arguments. It should be noted that a lack of standing does not eliminate a meritorious argument.
When Ark was declared a NBC, his parents had returned to China, never to return to the States. Ark went to San Fransico alone.
It’s going to happen: an “anchor baby” will become president:
http://newyorkleftist.blogspot.com/2009/10/likely-scenario.html
For completness – USSC quoted Gaius in 4 Opinions – this one, one where it was in a quote from Blackstone, one invoving Spanish Law and one where the English Common Law was similar but contradicted by MA state law.
jamese777,
Please don’t rely on the obiter dictum of the Indiana Court of Appeals for support. It was, and will remain, a shamefull act in which the court overtly intended to pass on a question when the need to resolve it was not necessary.
That case was dismissed by the lower court because the Governor had not duty to verify the eligiblity of the candidates. Therefore, the determination of eligibility is not something the court needed to address.
Here’s an easy way to determine of the courts opinion is obiter dictum: Remove it from the court’s decision, and see if the decision can still stand. In this case it is very easy to see that if the governor had not duty, the lower court correctly dismissed the case. Anything beyond that is obiter dictum.
Misha,
No matter how much you want it; even if you close your eyes and tap your heels together; the Court in Wong Kim Ark never declared him to be a natural born citizen.
It makes you look foolish to make such unsupported claims, and I’m sure you are an intelligent person.
You said; “It’s going to happen: an “anchor baby” will become president:”
I have no doubt that, at the rate we’re going, it is likely to happen. Will it be constitutional? I’d like the Court, or Constitutional Amendment, to make that decision before it happens.
No, of course not. However, making a technical point about Wong’s specific holding while ignoring the chain of logic that got there, or saying that Lynch is not binding while ignoring the chain of logic that got there, is “gotcha”. “Gotcha” is being superficial and making errors of generalization.
I assure you that if you make a well-reasoned argument, it will be respected.
What is your source for this?
Again you miss the point. The point is not that Ankeny is binding; the point is that a trained legal mind looking at the question, goes to Wong and sees in it a conclusion that you are mightily trying to avoid. Ankeny proves you and your ilk are cranks.
Just answer me one question: why is it that your tribe cannot find a single reputable scholar that says Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen because of his British father? And please, don’t fall back on the standard conspiracy theory excuse that “they’re all part of the conspiracy”.
Misha,
“When Ark was declared a NBC, his parents had returned to China, never to return to the States. Ark went to San Fransico alone.”
I hate to be dismissive, but; So? The Court relied on their status (as permanently domiciled residents) at the time of Wong Kim Ark’s birth.
Being well-known, and being relied on for a particualr subject are two very different things. So in fact you accomplished nothing.
What you consider ludicrous is of no consequence. I personally consider it ludicrous that someone would ignore the consensus of virtually entire legal community, that accepts without question that US citizenship is based on birth on US soil, and accept the mad ramblings of a handful of quack attorneys, without a single shred of evidence that the Founders even mentioned de Vattel in their discussions about citizenship, and clear legal history pointing to the English common law as the source of the phrase “natural born citizen.”
You might want to look up a little guy known as John Locke…you know the guy the grade schools have been giving credit for the origins of the prhase for some 240 years now. De Vattel’s writing on the subject was nothing new. Elightenment writers have been writing about the social contract a good century before de Vattel was born. The need to prop up de Vattel as the origin and inspiration of everything about our founding (and somehow was suddenly completely forgotten until some part time attorney/poker player rediscovered him) is beyond silly
What are you going to do in ’12, when Jindal runs?
Thank you.
Dr. Conspiracy,
“Ankeny proves you and your ilk are cranks.”
Who would have guessed it? Dr. Conspiracy is the first to resort to name calling. What was a civil discussion is no longer.
This site is Dr. Conspiracy’s home. If he feels the need to insult a guest, I think it proper for the guest to leave.
Bu-bye.
Hey, I like being dismissive. To apply your own standard, can you drop the train reasoning from Calvin’s case (with it’s natural born subject language connected to natural born citizen) in the Wong decision and reach the conclusion that Wong was a citizen? (no) Can you indicate where in the reasoning in the Wong case where the court relied on the domicile of Wong’s parents? (no)
Your attempts to limit Wong is a distinction without a difference. Have you even read Wong?
Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.
I think the name calling started in December of 2008.
Well, you are a crank. Am I supposed to pretend that you have a legitimate argument when you don’t?
If you’re that sensitive, I suggest you don’t hang around the Internet.
“Mr. Jefferson, our secretary of state, in conformity with the doctrine of that undoubted authority, Vattel, “
DR, if you don’t starting giving complete references for quotes or assertions, I’m going to ban you as a troll.
“And yet, wonderful to relate, it is persectly conformable to the law of nations, as laid down by that undoubted authority, Vattel”
You silly wabbit. Until Donofrio dug him out, no one heard of the guy. You are just parroting what other Denialists are saying.
What are you going to do in ’12?
Lynche v. Clark continues to be cited by the Federal Courts to this day. That makes it binding prededent. Also, there is nothing that prohibits a state court from interpreting federal law or the constitution, so a state court can address the question of who is a US citizen. The only limitations of Lynch are in your mind.
No, what makes it settled law is that no one in the legal community serious questions what the answer is. Ark has an accepted interpretation in the legal community. The odds are slim that any court will ever seriously address the subject, because it something that would be laughed out of court on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. It will never make it to the Supreme Court because the SCOTUS doesn’t take no brainers.
Read the rationale in the decision. While the question was raised framed around permanent resident parents, the Court did not consider that fact in its rationale, and focused only on birth on the soil. Therefore you can concluse that permanent residence does not matter.
I love when birthers try to pretend they’re not birthers. You see when you’re “not taking a side” on an issue that the legal community has long since considered well settled, you have taken a side. There is no meritorious argument. Show me one legal scholar that says de Vattel is how we define citizenship. ONE! One law journal article that claims that it is not enough to be born on US soil to be a NBC. You have shown no evidence what so ever, so I don’t know what this b.S. about “there being enough evidence to establish that both sides have meritorious arguments.” Quite simply, by rejecting the reality based community, you have clearly picked a side.
I wonder if DR and Nunya are familiar with the idea of “Confirmation Bias”?
Considering how badly they suffer from that affliction, it would be a shame if they remained ignorant of it’s dangers.
Thanks for the legal advice but I think that I will continue to rely on Ankeny as being one more court decision declaring that two citizen parents are not required to be considered a natural born citizen than courts that have ruled that two citizen parents are required.
Since the reference to Wong Kim Ark is followed by the words “we conclude” and since the reference to Wong Kim Ark, Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 is in the OPINION of the Court, I think I’ll be ok to continue quoting it.
After all, Ankeney was a suit challenging Obama’s right to receive Indiana’s Electoral College votes on the grounds that he was not a natural born citizen due to the fact that his father was not an American citizen.
Birthers rely on dicta from almost every court decision that has ever been rendered that they can construe as backing their position. A great example is Minor v Happersett, a women’s suffrage suit.
What’s good for the birther goose is good for the non-birther gander!
Probably a good idea – but incase anyone wants it the source is :
http://books.google.com/books?id=03gPAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA163&lpg#v=onepage&q&f=false
And in context it doesn’t say that Jefferson relied on Vattel (although he may have)
In ’12, Jindal will be VP candidate.
Oooooh oooooh me first…
They are referencing Vattel on……PIRACY and the taking of ships….Nary a sight of citizenship.
All aboard Prancers FAILBoat….
I would call a contextual violation if Nunya is asserting that Marshall (in The Venus) is citing Vattel about the acquisition of citizenship. One need but look to the preceding paragraph to see the purpose for which Marshall cites it:
On the other hand, if one were merely asserting that on subjects of international law (the law of nations) Vattel was considered (among others) as an authority by Marshall, then it is appropriate. It would be wholly dishonest to claim that Marshall, by citing this passage, was saying he thought it defined natural born citizen in the constitutional sense.
Interesting case. Turns out the counsel in the case was Sir William Blackstone. THAT Blackstone! What are the odds? Turns out the connection was very important.
Buvot v Barbuit (1737) Cases t Talbot 281 — Lord Talbot: the law of nations in its full extent was part of the law of England’. Lord Mansfield (Mr. Murray at the time) was counsel in this case. Note this is 21 years BEFORE Vattel wrote his opus.
In Triquet v. Bath (1754), while Lord Mansfield said that “the Law of Nations, in its Full Extent, was Part of the Law of England” (quoting Lord Talbot in the Buvot case), he also said that “the Law of Nations was to be collected from the Practice of the different nations, and the Authority of Writers.” Those writers were “Barbeyrac, Binkershoek, Wiquefort, etc., there being no English writer of eminence, upon the Subject.” Blackstone was counsel in this case. No mention of Vattel.
“Blackstone’s judgment affirmed the supremacy of statute and the integrity of the common law by encompassing the law of nations within them rather than erecting it as a higher law above them. It did not imply that the law of nations could be used to overturn English law, nor that explicit references to the law of nations in legislation could be deemed to graft alien principles onto English statutes.” David Armitrage, in Parliaments, nations, and identities in Britain and Ireland, 1660-1850 By Julian Hoppit
“A clear line of transmission can thus be traced for the doctrine that the law of nations was part of English law, running backwards from Blackstone through Lord Mansfield to Lord Talbot.” (Ibid.) Both cases were about diplomatic immunity, where international law and municipal law intersect. Until these cases, the principle had been part of international law but not common law. The Act of 7 Anne c.12 in 1709 was part of this doctrine.
Blackstone defined the law of nations as “a system of rules, deducible by natural reason, and established by universal consent among the civilized inhabitants of the world;” Vattel in his introduction to his book said: “The generality of writers, and even celebrated authors; almost exclusively confine the name of the Law of Nations to certain maxims and customs which have been adopted by different nations, and which the mutual consent of the parties has alone rendered obligatory on them.” Not even VATTEL thought he was inventing the Law of Nations.
Anybody have a link to these actual cases (not commentary)? Thanks for introducing me to these cases, they are interesting, and provide even more evidence that Vattel wasn’t the Definer.
I think that it is more instructive to look at what Justice Marshall said in that decision rather than the text he cites. The distinction Marshall makes in the following is between one’s permanent allegiance and that of where he has taken up residence; that distinction is not expressed in the language of parentage, but place of birth. Here’s now Marshall puts it:
Which has nothing to do with Vattel.
If you scroll through the book which you linked to, you will see that wherever Vattel’s book is referred to, the title “Law of Nations” is italicized (e.g., p. 63). It is not italicized in the portion which you quoted.
In fact, the author makes it quite clear that he considers the phrase “Law of Nations” to be synonymous with “International Law.” (it’s right on page one).
This is typical of birthers. You take quotations out of context, give them meanings which they were never intended to mean, or quote things which are entirely irrelevant to the definition of “natural born citizen.”
It’s things like this that make this a site a valuable reference. Thanks.
since you are an OhBama Skolla..and a Historian on all matters..relating to this subject..assumed you knew..Jefferson’s..relationship with the Law of Nations
How many on this site have read..the 1758 Edition of Vattels Law of Nations…the 1760..1773..1797..
The Founders read it..some more than once..and here we have this site..critizing Vattel and none have read it..
Have YOU read them?
(He asks knowingly)
No one is criticizing de Vattel (again, for someone so impressed with him, I have to wonder why you cannot get his name right).
We are criticizing YOUR uneducated and unreasoning confirmation bias on the subject.
We actually have people here who have read Vattel- I love their commentaries on how Vattel clearly influenced our Gun rights laws.
Now I haven’t read Vattel because he is irrelevant to citizenship in the U.S, and I am not interested in his theories on international law.
From Blackstone’s Commentaries:
“To encourage also foreign commerce, it was enacted by statute 25 Edw. III. st. 2, that all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at the time of the birth in allegiance to the king, and the mother had passed the seas by her husband’s consent, might inherit as if born in England; and accordingly it hath been so adjudged in behalf of merchants.(a) But by several more modern statutes(b) these restrictions are still further taken off: so that all children, born out of the king’s ligeance, whose fathers (or grandfathers by the father’s side) were natural-born subjects, are now deemed to be natural-born subjects themselves to all intents and purposes“
(b)7 Anne, c. 5. 4 Geo. II. c. 21, and 13 Geo. III. c. 21.
WelshDragon found this reference earlier and it would appear to be the English Statute that Representative Burke was referring to:
“That after the said Limitation shall take Effect as aforesaid no Person born out of the Kingdoms of England Scotland or Ireland or the Dominions thereunto belonging (although he be naturalized or made a Denizen (except such as are born of English Parents) shall be capable to be of the Privy Councill or a Member of either House of Parliament or to enjoy any Office or Place of Trust either Civill or Military or to have any Grant of Lands Tenements or Hereditaments from the Crown to himself or to any other or others in Trust for him”
Also ladder possession. Talk about relevant.
The extract that that gorefan is from the Act of Succession 1701
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=46986
It may be that it is the Act Rep. Burke refered to but personally I favour
William III, 1697-8: An Act to naturalize the Children of such Officers and Souldiers & others the natural borne Subjects of this Realme who have been borne abroad during the Warr the Parents of such Children haveing been in the Service of this Government. [Chapter XX. Rot. Parl 9 Gul. III.4.n.2.]
which at first seems limited to named individuals but the contains:
“…and all other Persons who att any time since the Thirteenth Day of February One thousand six hundred eighty and eight or att any time since the beginning of the [said (fn. 1) ] late Warr with France c before the Twenty fifth Day of March One thousand six hundred ninety and eight which are or shall be borne out of His Majesties Dominions and whose Fathers or Mothers were natural borne Subjects of this Realme and were then actually in the Service of His Majesty or of His Majesty and the late Queen of Blessed Memory are hereby declared and shall forever be esteemed and taken to all Intents & Purposes to be and to have been the Kings natural borne Subjects of this Kingdome and that the said Children and all other Persons borne as aforesaid and every of them are and shall be adjudged reputed and taken to be in every respect and degree natural borne Subjects and free to all Intents Purposes & Constructions as if they & every of them had been borne in England.”
http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=46906
What is certain is that Rep.Burke’s cite is garbled.
So as usual, we discover:
1. Birther googles a phrase and comes up with a plausible-sounding citation.
2. Birther proudly waves citation as proof.
3. Dr. C and his community draw on superior knowledge of history, law, and international nuances to refute. In addition, some (like me) spend a quite interesting few hours researching the actual documents and historical commentary to discover citation actually supports the opposite of what the birther thought.
4. Birther tries to recover, then takes offense at some tidbit and walks away in a huff.
Conclusion: Just as everyone has thought for hundreds of years, law of nations means international law, and natural born citizen means born on the soil, parental status doesn’t matter (except for ambassadors, invading armies, and Indians not taxed).
Just another day in ConspiracyLand.
Please provide source, and specify how many founders and how many times. Or did you just make that up?
I doubt you know. You don’t seem to know much about what you copy and paste.
That was a pretty pathetic error, and it’s always the same, year after year.
HYBRID? Are you really comparing the President to a PRIUS???
Good God, what an idiot!
Nunya is seriously citing Wikipedia as an “adequate source” of anything?
BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!
– Candidate (1964) Barry Goldwater (R) was born outside the United States, in the Arizona Territory, before Arizona was a state).
– Candidate (1968) George Romney (R) was born in Mexico to American parents.
– Candidate (1980) Lowell Weicker (R) was born in Paris, France to US citizens, though his mother was born in India and her father was a British General.
– Candidate (1916) Charles Evan Hughes (R) was born in the United States to an American mother and a father who was a citizen of the UK at the time of Hughes’ birth.
Sound familiar?
Let’s see…your grammar is atrocious, your spelling is questionable, and you believe that law books read by students between 1783 and 1787 proves that one of these books influenced the adults writing the Constitution. You also have told a blatant lie when you claimed not to have an opinion on whether Barack Obama is a natural born citizenship AND you have slung around legal terms that you clearly do not understand.
Given the above, why should anyone here take you seriously?
There have been reports that about two of the founders had possessed copies of De Vattel (not Vattel) book that you mentioned. The phrase “The Founders read it,” means all 55 founders. Also, from my I have read only one might of read it.
The main point is a critique of De Vattel, but a rebut of the relevance of his book has to the creation of the Constitution.
A solid proof would have been the exact definition of “natural born citizen” you attempting to present being included in the Constitution.
From my perception the founders where more concerned with breaking from the monarchy, but having into inherit legal principles from English that wasn’t include in the Constitution.
From the University of Pennsylvania Law Review in 1953, vol. 101, Edwin Dewitt Dickinson’s essay, The Law of Nations as Part of the National Law of the United States II, the opening begins discussing the Law of Nations and it its incorporation in the creation of the constitution with citations from, Blackstone.
http://www.jstor.org/pss/3310153
(I do not have full access to JSTOR, so I was unable to read further at this time. I invite those who know this article or have access to this article to point out any accidental false assumption I may have made)
“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 4″
[4 Vattel sect 216 220 ] Pg. 12
Under view of the law of nations natives or natural born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.” (Vattel, book 1, cited as source. Most probably the 1797 version).
[5 Vattel Book I p 101] Pg. 12
A citizen in the largest sense is any native or naturalized person who is entitled to full protection in the exercise and enjoyment of the so called private rights 3 The natural born or native is one who is born in the country of citizen parents 4″
[4 Vattel Droit des Gens 1 io xix sect 212 Ed Paris 1863] Pg. XI
Philadelphia, June 17*4, 1793. Mr. Jefferson, Secretary of State, to Mr. Cc/ict, Minis, er Plenipotentiary of France. Sia
“Let us appeal to enlightened and disinterested judges. None is more so than Vattel.”
And most humble servant,
Th: J E F F”E R S O N.
Philadelphia, 22d June, 1793.
http://books.google.com/books?id=unMFAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA29&vq=Vattel++Jefferson&dq=%22A+message+of+the+President+of+the+United+States+to+Congress+relative+to+France+and+Great+Britain%22&output=text
[I banned the rabbit for lying, but he did actually post a link for once and I believe that labor should be rewarded. Rabbit posted three versions of this message, another of which concludes:
The letter was written by Jefferson as Secretary of State to the French Consul. It appears from a brief read of the context that France had been preparing vessels of War in US facilities, and Jefferson is conveying the objection of the United States. France had made an argument based on natural and international law that they are permitted to do this, and Jefferson quotes de Vattel who he says is the best source on that subject. Jefferson is not saying that de Vattel is universally the most enlightened judge of all matters, but among writers of natural law, and perhaps international law. The part of the citation omitted by Dancing Rabbit says:
And as do many, Jefferson was puffing up the importance of his source to bolster his argument.
Citing Jefferson while cutting out the context makes Jefferson seem to say something that he does not and that is but another form of lie.
By the way, Jefferson cites de Vattel in French. When Jefferson became President, he was a French citizen.
Doc]
http://books.google.com/books?id=unMFAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA29&vq=Vattel++Jefferson&dq=%22A+message+of+the+President+of+the+United+States+to+Congress+relative+to+France+and+Great+Britain%22&output=text
Let us appeal to enlightened and disinterested judges. None is more so than Vattel.
JEFFERSON 1793
See link above
Dancing Rabbit.
If you cannot even get de Vattel’s name right, you cannot expect us to take your claims of him seriously.
Lets have a look at this one..
“And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States:”
read it carefully..children of citizens..that MAY be born are natural born citizens.
it really says..children of citizens are natural born citizens. MAY..
Nunya, you said that someone cannot be born a citizen. That congress has no authority for them to be born a citizen. However, from the first congress forward, Congress has been declaring people to be born citizens, even when born outside the United States.
People are born citizens. They’re born citizens by either being born in the United States (and subject to the jurisdiction thereof). Or they’re born citizens by being born to U.S. Citizen parents. You’re stating that over 200 years of acts of congress are actually unconstitutional. It would take a tall order for that to be actual, and without an explicit Supreme Court Ruling stating so, I’ll take my rules with the U.S. Citizenship law.
You may believe you have a reading of the constitution.
The categories that I mention are Citizens from the moment that they are born. They have no requirement to go through any additional process to make them citizens. They are literally born citizens of the United States. I don’t know any other way of stating it than they are born citizens.
WTF? You’re either stoned, an imbecile or you’re doing a heck of a job ridiculing birthers.
Irrelevant.
Irrelevant information without a citation.
It is a carious result of trying to find a source of that quote.
The Fourteenth Amendment and gender equality. How much America has changed over the years.
1 is incorrect; I have already proven you wrong on that one.
I haven’t looked into 2 and I won’t since you don’t respond to facts other than by reposting the same lies.
3 is also not correct. you have been proven wrong a zillion times before here.
You have nothing.
I have always been under the impression that once a persons birth is record by the state that they are a citizen. Also, when a state grants a person citizenship they are a citizen. Hasn’t this concept go all the way back to ancient Rome?
The point here is that arguably, because of his father, Obama wouldn’t be a polites, but he would definitely be an astos. Leaving aside the complete irrelevance by modern standards of the Athenians’ two classes of citizenship, this shows that the birthers are unarguably wrong when they try to make it sound as if the Pericles Law somehow proves their point. It doesn’t. At best, it’s complicated, depends on how you translate antiquated notions into modern law and is ultimately irrelevant.
It the same with Vattel; he didn’t require two citizens parents and understood other countries such as England used jus soli and was OK with that, and only the ” father trumps mother except in out of wedlock cases” opens the door to an argument, but it is NOT the clearcut thing birthers are trying to sell. Quite the contrary.
DR can repeat his mantra a zillion times; he is still wrong.
Another lie!
I mentioned above that I’m a French lawyer & came to this site initially because of Vattel (it showed up on google).
You know nothing about Vattel and understand even less.
Sometimes they don’t even do that. I think I refuted the rubbishy statements regarding Pericles’ Law rather well, but the silence was as they say deafening. They literally have nothing to say, except repeat their lies.
Plss respond to the jefferson quote..I provided a link to the Jefferson letter
“The first principle of government is founded on the natural rights of individuals, and in perfect equality. Locke, Vattel, Lord Somers, and Dr. Priestly, all confirm this principle. This principle of equality, when applied to individuals, is lost in some degree, when he becomes a member of a society, to which it is transferred; and this society,”
what have we here..a Founder.
The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 [Farrand’s Records, Volume 1]
YATES Wednesday, June 27th, 1787.
Thought Vattel was a no body..obscure..right jamese777
http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?hlaw:4:./temp/~ammem_G8WZ::
The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 [Farrand’s Records, Volume 1]
KING Wednesday 27. June5
Whatever is internal and existing between the separate states & individuals shall belong to the particular States. if there shall be occasion for farther powers being given to the US. a future convention may propose ym.
if you give more than enough, it never can be reclaimed–It is said if the Genl. Govt. legislates for individuals & not for States, the Govt. is not federal–but if the object of this Legislation is of an external nature, the Govt. is federal–
Our Reform must be federal–The States are equal & must have equal Influence and equal votes–I will proceed on first principls. every man out of society is equal, in Freedom, & every other quality of man–Lock, Vattel, & others prove this position–
the link not working but is in farrands records.
The oracles for Madison were Locke, Montesquieu, Hume, Clarke, Adam Smith, Necker, Vattel, Sidney, and the classical writers.
http://www.libertyparkusafd.org/lp/CD-ROMs%5CProclaim%20Liberty%20-%2016%20-%20The%20Mind%20of%20James%20Madison.html
What should he respond to about the Jefferson quote? There is nothing relevant to respond to.
The passage doesn’t have anything to do with citizenship (which is specifically an internal affair for any nation, as even de Vatell acknowledges) and various posters have already agreed that de Vattel’s strength was in international relations, which is the context that Jefferson is relying on here.
However, you continue to show how irrelevant your point has been about “Vattel” has to the definition of citizenship. The quote is about states rights and not on citizenship.
Once again you show that you haven’t taken time to read things in their full context. Ralph Louis Ketcham does explain the relevance of Vattel.
So it seems that the year was approximately when Vattel has some relevance, and the issue was about international law.
And that case seems to be about diplomatic immunity, which is nothing to do with citizenship; and even if we accept that some fo the ideas in Vattel’s work were taken on board, what of it? that does not imply that all of them were. And more to the point, Lord Mansfield’s declaration in that case refers to the law of nations in terms of international law, not in terms of the book.
Dancing Rabbit continues to prove he is an idiot and a liar.
The fact is, Vattel never claimed one needed two citizen parents to be a natural-born citizen. Never. In fact quite the contrary.
I’m probably the only here who’s actually read OTHER texts by Vattel — I’ve provided links before but they’re in French of course — but I don’t assume that his interesting considerations about the societies of ants (“LES FOURMIS”) should be taken as gospel by modern-day entomologists, for example. Things change. Which is why translating antiquated concepts into modern-day notions is risky at best.
Unless you’re a liar and a a dupe like Dancing Rabbit.
BTW there’s no need to use the “de” — it is perfectly fine (in French) to call someone Vattel when his name is “de Vattel”. You would however say “Monsieur de Vattel”. But it is OK to refer to him as just “Vattel” as you refer to Montesquieu and not “de Montesquieu”.
Unless the Swiss have other rules?
Wow, you found the evidence that I already metioned last Sunday on the Long Form Sighted? thread.
Obviously Dancing is nothing… but a troll as… it thinks it found the… “OMG” evidence of a founder… but we had already explained… it had nothing to do with… citizenship. Of course, Dancing thinks that… reading something is… agreeing with everything the author says (what I said is important because I put in lots of breaks).
Now, how important were various writers to the founders in creation of the Constitution. The Federalist papers may give an indication. To support there argument, they quoted and referred to Montesquieu and Blackstone multiple times. I have not been able to find any reference to de Vattel.
Actually, I have found no mention of Natural Born Citizen in the Federalist Papers. Now, if I were to advocate for this new constitution which used a different definition of Natural Born Citizen that the common law version that their audience would have known, I would think it would be good idea to actually mention it.
Oh my god. Madison cited Vattel on something unrelated to allegiance and citizenship, so therefore Madison must have defined allegiance and citizenship by Vattel. Gee, can’t understand why you birthers lose every case with such logic. I guess Madison didn’t read Blackstone:
“I will refer you to a book which is in every man’s hand — Blackstone’s Commentaries. It will inform you that the treaties made by the king are to be the supreme law of the land.”
James Madison, Virginia Ratification Debates, 1788.
http://books.google.com/books?id=yjAOAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA501&dq=madison+blackstone+book+in+every+hand&hl=en&ei=0j_MTLuyJMaqlAfFx8inCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDsQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=madison%20blackstone%20book%20in%20every%20hand&f=false
Too bad Madison didn’t tell us how allegiance and citizenship are defined in America. Oh, that’s right, he did.
“It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.” James Madison, The Founders’ Constitution Volume 2, Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2, Document 6 (1789)
Vattel’s Law of Nations was used to help form the United States. That is a long way from being “obscure”…go back and research the posts by DrC..he wanted to diminish Vattel..why..because Vattel..says in the 1758 Edition..the sons country is that of the father. .
The primary author of the Constitution Madison…states..Vattel is his ‘oracle’…Jefferson..Vattel is..undoubted authority..and enlightened. Franklin..”we are putting Vattel to good use in Congress”
There are so many Founders quoting Vattel during the Convention I cannot list them all…
Stop trashing a great man..just to prop up your Golden Calf AKA Obama.
King
Madison
Yeats
All part of one conversation. That wasn’t so hard.
This is why I’m banning you for lying.
And yet, DancingRabbit, the Founders used a term that had 400 years of history with English Common Law and didn’t even appear in a translation of Vattel until 10 years after the Constitution was written.
The Supreme Court has also ruled multiple times that English Common Law should be used to interpret the language in the Constitution. So, the Supreme Court fundamentally disagrees with you, and you’re expecting them to set aside 231 years of precedent and state that Citizenship isn’t really based upon English Common Law, but on International Law?
No matter how many times that you state your drivel, you can’t get past that part.
Brilliant response, as I would expect from your ilk. Assertions with no authority to back it up are what we see in all birther arguments. It is simply a fact that no framer ever cited Vattel on citizenship and never said that Vattel was their oracle. Why do just make stuff up? If you think Vattel was more influential than Blackstone, you just know nothing about such period. Scholars have actually done studies on who the framers cited the most and Vattel is far down the list, well below Blackstone and Coke and the writers on the English. He wasn’t even the most cited author on international law. Anyone who actually went to a real law school, which excludes most, if not all, birther lawyers, would know that much, if not most, of the Constitution was expressly based upon English law. Where do you think the concepts of the understanding of executive power, habeas corpus, impeachment, juries and grand jurines, high crimes and misdemeanors, the right to bear arms, indictment and presentments, cruel and unsual punishment, due process and on and on come from? They are all expressly taken from the English common law or the English declaration of rights (which was the basis of the the bulk of our bill or rights). Duh. Of course, there is no evidence that anything in the Constitution is based upon Vattel at all.
As I pointed out, Madison made clear that he defined citizenship by English law. You can’t dispute this, but just claim, without evidence, that he somehow worshiped Vattel. That is why you guys get laughted out of court in every case, including the supreme court, which expressly rejected your arguments 110 years ago. How sad that your whole movement isn’t smart enough to understand that your arguments were already made and rejected, by the supreme court.
Here is a study by a real scholar, i.e. not a dentist/attorney or DWI lawyer pretending to be a constituional lawyer, on who the founders actually cited. Blackstone was # 3, Vattel was #30. Pufendorf at #10 was the most cited authority on the law of nations. Can’t understand why your arguments are laughed out of court.
Frequency of Citation
Rank Author Percentage
1 St. Paul (Biblical) 9.00%
2 Montesquieu (Enlightenment) 8.30%
3 Sir William Blackstone (Common Law) 7.90%
4 John Locke (Whig) 2.90%
5 David Hume (Enlightenment) 2.70%
6 Plutarch (Classical) 1.50%
7 Cesar Beccaria (Enlightenment) 1.50%
8 Trenchard & Gordon (Whig) 1.40%
9 De Lolme (Enlightenment) 1.40%
10 Baron Pufendorf (17th Century Protestant Political Theorist) 1.30%
11 Sir Edward Coke (Puritan/Common Law) 1.30%
12 Cicero (Classical) 1.20%
13 Thomas Hobbes (17th Century Political Theorist) 1.00%
14 Robertson (Enlightenment) 0.90%
15 Hugo Grotius (17th Century Protestant Political Theorist) 0.90%
16 Rousseau (Enlightenment) 0.90%
17 Bolingbroke (Whig) 0.90%
18 Francis Bacon (Puritan) 0.80%
19 Price (Whig) 0.80%
20 Shakespeare 0.80%
21 Livy (Classical) 0.80%
22 Alexander Pope (Enlight.) 0.70%
23 John Milton (Puritan) 0.70%
24 Tacitus (Classical) 0.60%
25 Coxe (Whig) 0.60%
26 Plato (Classical) 0.50%
27 Abbe Raynal (Enlightenment) 0.50%
28 Mably (Enlightenment) 0.50%
29 Machiavelli 0.50%
30 Vattel (Enlightenment) 0.50%
31 Petyt 0.50%
32 Voltaire (Enlightenment) 0.50%
33 Robinson 0.50%
34 Algernon Sydney (Whig) 0.50%
35 Somers (Whig) 0.50%
36 Harrington (Whig) 0.50%
37 Rapin (Whig) 0.50%
http://www.constitution.org/primarysources/influences.html
DancingRabbit, all you have is a consistent need to misrepresent the facts. There were 55 founders at the convention, and not a high number to refer to them individually. From the quotes and links that you have presented, they demonstrate that de Vattel was referred to in the context of the rights of the state.
You conclusions of the relevance to of Vattel to citizenship is false. You claim of attack on Vattel are false.
DancingRabbit, stop hiding behind “a great man” to avoid criticism of your flawed arguments.
Evidence that I was not joking about “van” Vattel:
http://books.google.be/books?id=ThfzGvSvQ2UC&pg=PA30&lpg=PA30&dq=%22emmerich+van+vattel%22&source=bl&ots=tnwMd9csF2&sig=hbEDqXgDpWkrjNKnkxDWPiLzEXM&hl=nl&ei=ULvMTIzfB5Htsga1oISnAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&sqi=2&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=%22emmerich%20van%20vattel%22&f=false
By the way, that is from 1997, not so long ago. It confirms that Vattel is still quoted on international law, but mainly for historical reasons.
If the Birfers ever found the Holy Grail, ie some statement by a Founder that the reference in the Constitution was based on Vattel’s definition, you can be sure that Obama ‘s lawyers would argue that would imply that the Founders knew enough French to understand the intricacies of French grammar, and knew parens did not refer to both parents. I am sure they would also argue that since the quote the birthers always use, uses parens and not pères as elsewhere in the chapter – the word parens does not necessarily mean father and/or mother. The lawyers could even quote the Oxford English Dictionary on “parent”.
Jindal woulkd be in trouble – but his belief that life starts at conception causes his main problem – Jindal was not under US jurisdiction when he was conceived.
Someone, please get a shovel to clear this steaming pile.
Of course the law of nations was well known to the Framers. They were educated men, and many were professional diplomats. International law must be well known to all diplomats or they wouldn’t be able to do their job.
You are making the mistake of conflating the law of nations with the book commonly known as The Law of Nations by de Vatel (or however you want to spell his name).
The book is a DISCUSSION of international law as generally recognized at the time, from the point of view of a Prussian/German diplomat, not some “official text” of laws adopted universally. Who would have set this lawful “official text” anyway, the Illuminati?
In the discussion on citizenship, the book says that some countries use jus soli, some use jus sanguinis. It doesn’t say one or the other is universally adopted or correct. It merely discussed the differences.
There were probably very few books that pulled together in one place all the various aspects of international law, so it is unreasonable that de Vatel would not be referenced in discussions of international law. Differences in the way various countries claim the allegiance of their citizenry may, from time to time, raise issues with the relations between countries, and de Vatel is correct in pointing out that some countries do it one way and other countries do it another way.
It is a fact that de Vatel would have been most familiar with the jus sanguinis process used by his mother country, It is a fact that the Framers would have been most familiar with the jus solis process used by their mother country. All de Vatel does is describe (some of the) the options the Framers had when they were working on the Constitution.
Whether the Framers were familiar with de Vatel or not, they would have been aware of both systems and would have had to have made a choice. The principle author of the Constitution, James Madison, acknowleges that the Framers knew of both possibilities and tells us exactly what the Framers decided.
“It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.” (Abridgment of the Debates of Congress, from 1789 to 1856 From Gales and Seatons’ Annals of Congress)
So it doesn’t matter whether de Vatel was read by the Framers or not. It doesn’t matter what de Vatel said or did not say about citizenship and whether or not the Framers read that chapter or not. What matters is what the Framers decided in the end, and what they decided is that ‘jus solis’ is what applies in the United States.
This is not to say that de Vatel’s book is/was not a useful commentary on other facets of international law or that his opinions were not respected by the Framers on the fine points of international law.
de Vatel’s opinion on the citizenship rules of specific nations are never-the-less irrelevant in the face of the actual rules a nation’s in fact adopts. The USA, as James Madison points out, follows jus solis, it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.
The purpose of the new U.S. Constitution was to unite the 13 independent and sovereign free states into a more perfect union. Thus treatises on enlightened ideas for relations between free states and international law such as Vattel’s Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law were consulted extensively seeking universal principles such as those found in natural law to unite them into a more perfect union.
Until Donofrio dug Vattel out of a dustbin, you never heard of, nor read him. Thank heaven I don’t have to work with you.
Yes, and…?
Vattel was not the only book consulted, nor was it the most significant, and he was certainly not used to inform the citizenship rules, or about the right to bear arms, or the separation of church and state, or any of a number of items already discussed in this thread.
So what exactly is the significance of Vattel to the American ‘experiment’?
You’re stating that something such as Jus Soli that was universally accepted as the criteria among the states would have been abandoned for citizenship in a union among those states?
Remember, every state had accepted the English Common Law as part of their law (only state to not accept that is Louisiana largely because of their Cajun background).
You’re stating that the founders said, “You know, all of our states have accepted English Common Law. Let’s use a term that has deep meaning within English Common Law as a requirement for citizenship, completely redefine it to mean the complete opposite of what everybody thinks it actually means, and then let’s not tell anybody that we’ve actually done this, so in the future, nobody will actually know that we did this.” Do you really expect the founders to be stupid enough to do that?
Birthers, when you have to argue minutiae of Vattel and the various translations/editions of his book, and reference Greek law from 1500 years ago, you have already lost the argument.
No.One.Cares.
And no court will ever order the removal of Obama from the Presidency, much less on a technicality.
Someone here cited Pericles, and a Greek concept from 451 BCE. That would make it 2,461 years ago.
As Seth and Amy would say: Really?!
And may I add, argue very poorly as the texts themselves hardly bolster their contention.
Somehow, they say “Vattel” as if they were Billy Batson saying “Shazam!” But it just ain’t so.
Nope. It was mentioned a few times when they were discussing parts of the Constitution dealing with international relations, the only thing anyone consulted Vattel on. Do you morons know that the framers actually debated eligibility in the Convention? You really don’t have to speculate what they were concerned with as you can see what they actually said. The debate was whether office holders should be native born, and if not, how long one would need to be a citizen before becoming eligible. No one brought up Vattel. End of story,
Ballantine: Here is a study by a real scholar, i.e. not a dentist/attorney or DWI lawyer pretending to be a constituional lawyer, on who the founders actually cited. Blackstone was # 3, Vattel was #30. Pufendorf at #10 was the most cited authority on the law of nations. Can’t understand why your arguments are laughed out of court.
Apparently the idiot Apuzzo still lurks here. Of course, he is too chicken to post here and have his arguments torn apart. Here is his site:
I am so flattered that Mario reads my stuff. Of course, if he really read it he would see I was responding to the silly notion that de Vattel was somehow more influential on the founders than Blackstone. Only an idiot would believe sucha thing. Of course, Mario knows that he and his birther friends can’t cite any framer looking to de Vattel on any topic remotely related to citizenship while Madison himself looked to Blackstone’s definition. He also knows that the framers debated eligibility at length and only discussed place of birth in accordance with Blackstone’s definition. Facts are a bitch when one so to filled with Obama hatred. While it is clear that much of the constitution, including almost the whole bill of rights, is expressly based upon English law, it is unclear that any porivision of the Constitution is based upon the law of nations other than the ability of Congress to punish people for violating internation law.
One half of a percent isn’t extensively. The founders where “enlightened” individuals who drew their influences from many people. I seriously doubt that all or most of founders had a copy of Vattel’s books with them and continually referred to them while creating the constitution. Vattel’s seems to have only been referred in the context of states rights or international relations. Even in that context it wasn’t extensively.
You guys seem to want to distort anything, not matter how insignificant it may be.
Another delusional birther fantasy.
Mario Apuzzo doesn’t really care. Instead of checking the reference, and seeing if their is any validity in the claim he makes snide remarks.
No, it was to produce a better overall government than the discordant mess brought about by the Articles of Confederation. Good God, can’t you even read?
What a con, you are so busted in your lies I have have picture proof that you took research I posted on freepers and lied about its contents…because what I posted that day did not include Vattel…but you should have checked back 2 days later, I never post everything all at once…
Monday, October 25, 2010 4:16:48 AM 2,124 of 2,837 only excerpts per JSTOR rules
The American Journal of Legal History, Vol 18, The Development of American Citizenship in the Revolutionary Era (1974) Jmes Kettner
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2618338/posts
Ballentine wrote: He also knows that the framers debated eligibility at length and only discussed place of birth in accordance with Blackstone’s definition…
Oh yeah, since he is only mentioned a few times in congressional record regarding the system of the judiciary and never mentioned in regards to citizenship as Vattel was, please show us proof of the claim of yours.
There’s a new thread about Dr. Conspiracy and deVattel over at FreeRepublic.com
it seems that someone is none too please with the doctor!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2618338/posts
I have seen your research and it is comical. Vattel was never mentioned by any framer on citizenship nor by any other early authority at all. I see you have not read the debates of the constitutional convention and do not know that they debated whether office holders should be native born at length. I suggest you go do some research and come back when you know what you are talking about.
It’s not that I am not pleased with the Con Dr personally, it’s the fact that he is a bald faced LIAR and a known propagandist promoting revisionist history that is destroying this country.
From FR…
To: patlin
Dr.Conspiracy has stated on his blog that he has been banned here without ever posting a comment. It seems only fair to remove the ban if there is a thread concerning him.
13 posted on Sunday, October 31, 2010 6:53:47 PM by charo
At least Charo points out that it is easy to attack someone when they can go and defend themselves…
The only answer to your ridiculous assertion is to quote Rep. Barney Frank:
“What planet are you living on?”
Because it’s certainly not the one that the rest of us are, birther.
Please provide the quote where Vattel was referenced in regards to citizenship.
The release of Algernon Sidney’s treatises on natural law directly resulted in the original uprising in England in the mid 1600’s that ended with the ousting of King James. Those writings & Sidney’s speeches got him sentenced as a traitor and in the end resulted in his beheading. Locke, while living at the same time, actually took part in the insurrection & he escaped to exile before he got caught. Locke didn’t return to England until after the overthrow of King James & the seating of the new King whom he had championed for. The uprising for a return to “natural law” began at the time of the reformation of Luther. When the pilgrms came, they brought with them the bible & natural law that had been handed down. Ancient common law that was part of the original English Constitution of the English Anglo-Saxons. Justice James Wilson of the 1st US Supreme Court, signer of the Declaration, signer & only 2nd to Madison in the drafting of the Constitution, contracted by the State of PA & the US Congress to write the 1st commentaries on American Law that started being published in 1791 & co-founder/law proffessor of the 1st American Law school in Philidelphia. He taught during his tenure on the Supreme Court & is highly regarded by “The Green Bag” http://www.greenbag.org/.
Uh huh sure. Its the birthers who are revising history and ignoring the fact that the US citizenship laws were based on the english common law. You’d overthrow the will of the people, the law, and the way our country operates just because your guy didnt win
Ummm where was Vattel cited in regards to citizenship at the convention?
Awww, that wasn’t very nice.
Frankly I think it’s hilarious that I’m charged with “revisionist history.” I could go on at length about this, but there are almost 1,000 articles on this web site already, so I guess I have already gone on at length.
But let me give you just two examples of how my version of history is the “original one.”
William Rawle wrote a book called “A view of the Constitution.” Rawle was a personal correspondent with George Washington, and was appointed by Washington district attorney in Pennsylvania. Rawle’s book was once used as a text book at the US Military Academy at West Point and has been cited numerous times as an authority by the US Supreme Court. This is what Rawle said:
Abraham Lincoln’s Attorney General, Edward Bates issued an AG opinion On Citizenship in 1862. He wrote:
These are not quote out of context. They are not incidental remarks. These are statements by authorities, one a lawyer and historian and the other the US Attorney General. They were writing for the purpose of explaining exactly what a natural born citizen is.
You will find no authority in history, writing as these men are — on topic and in context — that supports your crank version of history. You are the revisionist, as I have just demonstrated.
If I have lied, pray do point it out. I correct my errors.
For additional citations from history, see:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/01/the-great-mother-of-all-natural-born-citizen-quotation-pages/
DrCon: [F]or example, in James Kettner’s 1978 scholarly work, The Development of American Citizenship, 1608-1870, de Vattel is not mentioned a single time![unquote]
The above is a bald faced LIE! And that is my point! DrCon LIES YET AGAIN to push his propaganda! It’s his m.o. But then, it really isn’t about Vattel but there is a reason the founders used Vattel the most and it had nothing to do with religion as Sidney, Locke, Pufendorf, Grotius, etc all relied on, it had to do with the people as sovereigns not subjects of a sovereign. FYI, the earlier works before Vattel were not especially laws of nations, they were laws of nature that were common to all nations and Vattel brought the 2 together in his works for a cohesive treatise for all nations regardless of their religion or non-religion. America has its founding in the settleing of people from many nations, not just England & the land did not belong to England, the Crown never paid a dime, it was bought from the Natives through the personal funds of the settlers & thus they were free to make their own laws. Those born in the US were not natural born subjects, they were considered as denizens under English law, a status between alien & natural born according to Mark Janis, Oxford Law.
Linda: I agree with you. Doc doesn’t like me to post this, but I have found Obama’s authentic Kenya BC! Send this to everyone in Congress!! Hurry!!
One may go to the Library of Congress web site and search for the word “Vattel” in Farrand’s work to gain the proof.
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwfr.html
I will also add the comment of Mr. Greshak who disagrees with me about the meaning of natural born citizen, but nonetheless says this in regards to Vattel:
Awww, & neither was the Constitution written in 1868 & for every Rawle, there is another James Wilson who actually wrote the document, or a Sen. Howard, Trumbell or Rep Bingham who actually wrote the Civil Rights Act of 1866 & the 14th that was ratified in 1868 as well as the Expatriation Act of 1868
I’m sorry that you are mistaking that face in the mirror for the photo of the good Dr. from this web site. Do you use the same mirror to access your email too?
I never said that Congress used Vattel when discussing “natural born”. What I showed was that they used him in the discussions of who were the sovereigns & the rights of the states formed by individial sovereigns acting in consent not subjection in regards to power of the federal government. You will not find one refernce in Blackstone as to an individual’s right to be a free sovereign as he did not believe in it. Blackstone was a bold opposer to all things Republic and the individual as a sovereign. According to Kettner, Vattel became a mainstay in US colleges & homes by 1773. The easiest citizenship law to find after the decalration is VA & that law follows Vattel, Locke, Sidney in regards to citizenship by birth. Kettner also goes as far as to say that the only parts of Blackstone the founders considered regarding the individual was Blackstone’s section on natural law, which I agree, it is the best part of his works. But then when one reads well further into the works, Tucker takes Blackstone to task on the rest of it & even Tucker references Vattel to refute Blackstone, though Tucker does rely more on Locke, Sidney & Pufendorf, he is still very outspoken & against Blackstone’s reliance on feudal law of allegiance to a person, especially perpetual allegiance. He calls Blackstone, no friend of republicanism. No one new that more than Sidney who was beheaded for his belief in natural law & Locke who had to escape into exile because of his belief in it.
OK, I stand corrected (sort of). There is one mention of Vattel, but not in the context of citizenship, but rather on the right of revolution. The citation is too long to include in its entirety, but this is the relevant paragraph:
While I was technically mistaken (and it was a mistake, not an intentional lie), the point that I made was 100% true. Kettner makes gives no role to Vattel as a source of the ideas of citizenship in the United States. The one mention he gives is that of a British Loyalist who included Vattel in his reading list on another subject.
I don’t know about Doc, but I am a satirist.
Here we go again.
The Federalist – references to Vattel: Zero
Debate on the Constitution (Library of America) – references to Vattel: Zero
Madison: Writings (Library of America) – references to Vattel: two (once in regard to international relations, the other a passing reference to Vattel in a letter in which Madison disputes the idea that the individual states are sovereign)
Jefferson: Writings (Library of America) – references to Vattel: one (in an essay on treaties with France)
Hamilton: Writings (Library of America) – references to Vallel: two (once in regard to treaties, once in regard to war powers)
Jefferson (six-volume Pulitzer Prize-winning biography by Dumas Malone) – references to Vattel: Zero
The Creation of the American Republic, 1776-1787 by Gordon S. Wood – references to Vattel: four (two in regard to sovereignty, once in regard to the power of the legislature, once in a passing reference to him as a philosopher)
A History of American Law by Professor Lawrence Friedman – references to Vattel: Zero
The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin – references to Vattel: Zero
I could go on – I have biographies of George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, James Monroe, Benjamin Franklin and others, none of which even mention Vattel.
For all of their talk of Vattel, the birthers have yet to cite one instance in which a Founder stated or even implied that he was influenced by Vattel’s opinions about citizenship. And in any event the birthers have consistently misrepresented Vattel’s ideas on citizenship, as our French contributor Lupin has pointed out time and again.
Citation please.
In 1885, US Secretary Of State under Grover Cleveland, Thomas Bayard…the son of a German subject, born in Ohio, is not a citizen under the statute or the Constitution, because “he was on his birth ’subject to a foreign power,’ and not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States’
Thomas Bayard was the fourth generation of his family to serve in the U.S. Senate and was considered a prominent Bourbon Democrat.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/19579587/Nation-Article-Bayard
No there isn’t.
And once again, I never said that that reference had anything to do with Vattel & citizenship. I merely put it out there as proof that Vattel was common to the colonists, including lowly farmers. And as I said before, it was Algernon Sidney & Locke that I had been researching, not Vattel as sidney & Locke were the prominent English law philosophers that sparked the natural law revolution in England that ousted King James.
Sure there is. I see your Rawle & I raise you a St George Tucker & a Rep James Irredell, NC
I agree with you. Here is a copy of the book most common to American homes.
ROFLMAO…too funny
While I’m locating it, please turn to pages 200-201 regarding Rawle, who is only mentioned in footnote #77 on pg 201 (Coxe’s case), not in the actual text:
“The NJ consitution was based on theories of contract and consent that rejected the immutability of allegiance, and the ideology of the Revolution implied and included bothe the right of election and that of expatriation”
Rawle is only mentioned one one other page & also in footnote only. Page 223, footnote # 28 (Camp’s case)
Citations please.
Rawle is a historian of the Constitution, not an influence on it. However, you claim Vattel was an influence or a definer of citizenship, and have yet to explain why Kettner gives two inches to Lord Coke in the index, and one off-topic reference to Vattel.
Due to the large number of comments on this topic (making the web page unreasonably long), I am closing comments. Please post any further comments on this new article.
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2010/10/freepers-score-one-gotcha-on-the-doc/
Thanks.