If as Comrade Obama Jr claims his dad was Barak Hussein Obama Sr, of Kenya,
than it's not possible for Junior to be a Natural Born Citizen of the U.S.
At the time of the drafting and ratification of the United States constitution,
the definition of natural born citizen, combined both the principles of jus soli and jus sanguinis.
“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 the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”
Emmerich De Vattel, (1714-1767,) Law of Nations, 1758, § 212, "Of the citizens and naturals."
____________________________________________________________
Chapters 1 & 2 should prove to be interesting.
Oxford University Press USA
America and the Law of Nations 1776-1939
Mark Weston Janis
ISBN13: 9780199579341
ISBN10: 0199579342 Hardback, 320 pages
Jun 2010, Not Yet Published
Description
The American Tradition of International Law 1776-1939 is a unique exploration of the ways in which Americans have
perceived, applied, advanced, and frustrated international law.
It demonstrates the varieties and continuities of America's approaches to international law.
The book begins with the important role the law of nations played for founders like Jefferson and Madison
in framing the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
It then discusses the intellectual contributions to international law made by leaders in the New Republic -Kent and Wheaton-
and the place of international law in the 19th century judgments of Marshall, Story, and Taney.
The book goes on to examine the contributions of American utopians -Dodge, Worcester, Ladd, Burritt, and Carnegie-
to the establishment of the League of Nations, the World Court,
the International Law Association and the American Society of International Law.
It finishes with an analysis of the wavering support to international law given by Woodrow Wilson
and the emergence of a new American isolationism following the disappointment of World War I.
For anyone who hopes to understand the important place of international law in America and the
complex role of America in the development of international law,
The American Tradition of International Law 1776-1939 is a crucial read.
Table of Contents
1. The Law of Nations and the New Republic: Jefferson and Madison
2. The Law of Nations and International Law: Blackstone and Bentham
3. International Law and American Law: Marshall and Story
4. The International Law of Christendom: Kent and Wheaton
5. International Law and American Diplomacy: Jay and Webster
6. The Utopians: Dodge, Worcester, Ladd and Burritt
7. Slavery and American Exceptionalism: Taney and his Court
8. The Codification and Science of International Law: Lieber, Field and Wharton
9. The Alabama Arbitration and its Progeny: The International Law Association and the American Society of International Law
10. The New Utopians: Brace, Hill and Carnegie
11. The Reluctant International Law Enthusiast: Wilson
12. The Profession of International Law: Root and Scott
13. After Utopia: International Law and Isolationism
About the Author(s)
Mark Weston Janis is William F. Starr Professor of Law at the University of Connecticut School of Law.
Born in Chicago in 1947, he is a graduate of Princeton (A.B. 1969),
Oxford (B.A. 1972) where he was a Rhodes scholar, and Harvard (J.D. 1977).
He served as a U.S. naval officer (1972-75), and practiced international corporate and financial law
with Sullivan & Cromwell in New York and Paris (1977-80).
He first joined the faculty at Connecticut in 1980.
He was for four years (1993-97) a member of the law faculty of the University of Oxford in England
where he was Reader in Law, Fellow of Exeter College, and Director of Graduate Legal Studies (Research Degrees).
He is the author of three widely-adopted law school books:
An Introduction to International Law (Aspen 5th edn 2008),
Cases and Commentary on International Law (West 3rd edn 2006),
and European Human Rights Law (OUP 3rd edn 2008).
He has also published more than 50 articles on international law.
_______________________________________________________________________
Title:
Jefferson and the Law of Nations.
Main Author:
Louis Sears
Summary/Abstract:
TJ was versed in the classic sources of international law, e.g. Grotius, Vattel, Puffendorf,
but in face of the collapse of this "classical" school, he became a significant figure in the attempt
to "reconstitute a new law of nations," even while appealing to the old authorities.
The Embargo was a "grand experiment" whose failure was a "tragedy."
Published in Spanish as "Jefferson y el derecho de las naciones." Inter-America. 4(1920), 181-93. -- Frank Shuffelton
Found in: American Political Science Review. Vol 13, 1919.
________________________________________________________________________
Vattel's "The Law of Nations," was the most influential book on the law of nations for 125 years following its publication.
The first English translation appeared in 1759.
Numerous editions of {The Law of Nations} were printed in England during the Eighteenth century,
which were widely read in the American Colonies, along with editions in the original French.
The first American edition appeared in 1796.
The book was reprinted nineteen times in America by 1872. It was reprinted at least fifty times in the years following its 1758 publication.
Robert Trout
______________________________________________________________________
Emmerich de Vattel was the most popular of all writers on the law of nations in America before, but especially after, the American Revolution.
Vattel's {The Law of Nations} arrived, shortly after its publication, in an America, which had already been greatly influenced by Leibniz.
No later than 1770, it was used as a textbook in colleges.
It was often quoted in speeches before judicial tribunals and legislatures, and used in formulating policy.
Following the Revolution, Vattel's influence grew.
Vattel was cited far more often than Grotius and Puffendorf, in court proceedings, from 1789 to 1820.
Among those citing Vattel in legal cases and government documents, were Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, James Wilson, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, John Jay, and John Marshall.
John Adams, the future delegate to the Continental Congress, second President of the U.S., and father of President John Quincy Adams,
recorded in his Diary on Feb. 1, 1763, that after spending the day frivolously, instead of reading and thinking,
``The Idea of M. de Vattel indeed, scowling and frowning, haunted me.'' In 1765, Adams copied into his Diary three statements by Vattel, ``of great use to Judges,''
that laws should be interpreted according to the intent of the author, and every interpretation which leads to absurdity should be rejected.
In a letter to the Foreign Minister of Denmark, in 1779, Benjamin Franklin quoted Vattel, and ``his excellent Treatise entitled {Le Droit des Gens.}''
James Madison, as a member of the Continental Congress in 1780, drafted the instructions sent to John Jay,
for negotiating a treaty with Spain, which quotes at length from {The Law of Nations.}
Jay complained that this letter, which was probably read by the Spanish government, was not in code,
and ``Vattel's {Law of Nations,} which I found quoted in a letter from Congress, is prohibited here.''
Later, John Marshall, during his thirty-four years as Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court,
quoted Vattel by far the most among all authors on the law of nations.
The Law of Nations} and The Declaration of Independence
Delegates to the First and Second Continental Congress, which produced the Declaration of Independence,
often consulted {The Law of Nations,} as a reference for their discussions.
One important reason why the delegates chose to meet in Carpenters Hall, was that the building also housed the Library Company of Philadelphia.
The librarian reported that Vattel was one of the main sources consulted by the delegates during the First Continental Congress,
which met from Sept. 5 to Oct. 26, 1774.
Charles W.F. Dumas, an ardent supporter of the American cause, printed an edition of {The Law of Nations} in 1774,
with his own notes illustrating how the book applied to the American situation.
In 1770, Dumas had met Franklin in Holland, and was one of Franklin's key collaborators in his European diplomacy.
He sent three copies to Franklin, instructing him to send one to Harvard University, and to put one in the Philadelphia library.
Franklin sent Dumas a letter, Dec. 9, 1775, thanking him for the gift.
Franklin stated, ``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, has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting ...|.''
The study of {The Law of Nations} by the delegates to the Continental Congress, to answer questions ``of the circumstances of a rising state,''
is reflected in the Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776.
The central ideas of that document are coherent with Vattel's arguments on the criteria of a people to overthrow a tyrannical sovereign.
The Declaration of Independence states that governments are instituted to fulfill the
``inalienable rights'' of ``life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,'' and can be changed if they fail to meet these obligations to the people.
Governments should not be changed for light and transient causes, but only after a long chain of abuses to the fundamental rights of the people,
with repeated requests for redress of grievances, which were refused.
Repeated appeals were made to our ``British Brethren,'' but since they
``have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity,'' we are prepared to face them either in war or in peace.
Therefore, we declare ourselves independent of the British Crown, with the full powers of a sovereign government,
``to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which Independent States may of right do.''
The inclusion of the central conception of {The Law of Nations,} Vattel's Leibnizian concept of happiness,
as one of the three inalienable rights, is a crucial statement of the Declaration's Leibnizian character.
The Declaration of Independence was prepared by a committee consisting of Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson,
John Adams, Robert Livingston, and Roger Sherman.
Jefferson was assigned by this committee to write the draft of the Declaration,
after John Adams turned down the task, because of his numerous other responsibilities
________________________________________________________________________
Declaration and Resolves of the First Continental Congress
October 14, 1774
Resolved, N.C.D. 2. That our ancestors, who first settled these colonies, were at the time of their emigration from the mother country,
entitled to all the rights, liberties, and immunities of free and natural- born subjects, within the realm of England.
Resolved, N.C.D. 3. That by such emigration they by no means forfeited, surrendered, or lost any of those rights, but that they were,
and their descendants now are, entitled to the exercise and enjoyment of all such of them, as their local and other circumstances enable them to exercise and enjoy.