Stop calling me your BFF! I'm only an anime character!
Actually, philman_36 has irritated me sooo much that I am going to write my third Vattle Birther Internet Article on my blog and in this one I will not hold back!!! I mean REALLY, he is trying to prove I am a Obot, sooo he goes to Obotski Central and links a 9 month old Internet Article where I spent like 300+ pages arguing with them all by myself against like 20 of them??? (And there are some more threads on that site too where it was like me by myself against a million Obotski.) Talk about Reading Comprehension Challenged!!!
As far as what Vattle was, Swiss or French, it is not a big deal to me. He wasn’t a American and maybe people read him or not. I have read the book by the guy who did the Witch Trials, but it doesn’t make me a witch.
The common law question you asked is not something I know anything about, sooo I will ask my BFF Fabia Sheen, Esq. about it, and if I am wrong on something there, then I will certainly correct it on my blog. (But right off hand, I don’t remember ever talking about it???)
Do you think the founders and framers were stupid to read, reference and rely upon Vattel's legal treatise Law of Nations covering natural law?
And while your chatting with your lawyer friend, ask them if Madison and Mason were wrong when the framers themselves wrote:
October 18, 1787 - James Madison wrote to George Washington, N. York:
"Since the Revolution every State has made great inroads & with great propriety in many instances on this monarchical code.[Edit: Englands "Common Law"] The "revisal of the laws" by a Committe of wch. Col. Mason [Edit: George Mason] was a member, though not an acting one, abounds with such innovations. The abolition of the right of primogeniture, which I am sure Col. Mason does not disapprove, falls under this head.. What could the Convention have done? If they had in general terms declared the Common law to be in force, they would have broken in upon the legal Code of every State in the most material points: they wd. have done more, they would have brought over from G.B. a thousand heterogeneous & anti-republican doctrines, and even the ecclesiastical Hierarchy itself, for that is a part of the Common law."
June 18, 1788 - George Mason, In Convention, Richmond (Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution), states:
"We have it in our power to secure our liberties and happiness on the most unshaken, firm, and permanent basis. We can establish what government we please. But by that paper we are consolidating the United States into one great government, and trusting to constructive security. You will find no such thing in the English government. The common law of England is not the common law of these states."
Just as they had done more than a decade earlier by declaring their independence from the crown, here we see the father of the Constitution, and the father of the Bill of Rights rejecting the English Common Law as being the American Common Law.
Does your lawyer friend alleged to know what Mason and Madison meant to say was in contrast to what they actually wrote.
Also ask your lawyer friend just how, did the Colonists declare their independence from the crown...when British common law essentially forbade it since they (the Colonists) were considered in perpetual allegiance to the crown.
Hold back? Hold back what? The truth? The history? Or do you mean you intend to correct the record from your previous article? You've already demonstrated you've gotten it wrong with the other article as I've documented. Are you intentionally trying to mislead the few people who visit your blog by attempting to rewrite (or bury) the history and the influences upon our founders and framers?
You're a foil and a poseur. You claim to be something when you're not. You are nothing more than the desired vignette portrayal of Birthers.
You're the great Obot killer and yet you have no trophies, just blog links.
You've a great intellect yet you don't even know the most basic things you should to even appear to be informed.
Your "performance" needs some serious work.
How is that admission of error on "Ark" coming along? Do you still believe it means Arkansas?