Vattel

Various

[djf]

Lately, we have been bombarded by various people trying to say what is was/wasn't that Vattel had to say, and whether his opinions mattered

or were even known to the founders and early America.

So I did a bit of research.

Emmerich De Vattel was born 1714 of Swiss parentage. At an early age he became interested in literature and philosophy. Now there are much better and detailed biographies on the web, so I won't bore everybody with all the details I read. Suffice to say he spent many years with positions provided by the courts (the royal courts) and composed a number of works.

He was deeply influenced by an earlier work called "The Law of Nations" by Christian Wolfe, the problem with the earlier work being that it had been composed in Latin and was not a work for general use.

He (Vattel) completed his first edition of "Le Droit des Gens, ou Principes de la Loi Naturelle", or what we now call "The Law of Nations" in 1758.

It was a two volume work.

He died in 1767, in what I believe was France, though I haven't verified it yet.

Now the arguments about using Vattel as a reference have taken a couple forms. First, there seems to be an argument that he was perhaps a more obscure reference at that time and was not internationally accepted.

Another argument is that he never used the exact term "natural born citizen", so that what he was speaking of does not apply.

A little study of history show that both arguments fail miserably.

Vattel was aware of what was happening in America before his death. At least in terms of the settling of America.

At the end of Chapter XVIII, Occupation of a Territory by a Nation, he says "However we can't help but admire the moderation of the English Puritans who were the first to settle New England. A;though they bore with them a charter from their sovereign, they bought from the savages the lands they wished to occupy. Their praiseworthy example was followed by William Penn and the colony of Quakers that he conducted into Pennsylvania"

Vattels work was known in Europe and to the founders that had traveled there. There are a number of historical references that prove that which the reader can find on his own.

In 1775, eight years after his passing, Charles Dumas, a Swiss living in Holland, brought out a new edition and sent 3 copies to Benjamin Franklin. Franklin wrote "It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising State make it necessary frequently to consult the Law of Nations". This was in December, 1775.

The founding fathers were aware of and impressed by Vattels mentions of New England and Pennsylvania, and took it to heart. The work became an almost instant classic in pre-revolutionary Ameria.

By 1780 his work was considered a classic and was a textbook at the best universities.

So did the founders really know of the work?

They knew of it enough so that it is quoted in Supreme Court decisions even before the Constitution was written or ratified. In Miller v. The Cargo of the Ship Resolutions, the court said "Vattel, a celebrated writer on the laws of nations, says, 'when two nations make war a common cause, they act as one body, and the war is called a society of war; they are so clearly and intimately connected, that the Jus Postliminii takes place among them, as among fellow subjects.'" This decision was by the Federal Court of Appeals, Aug, 1781. Cited as 2 US 1 or 2 Dall 1

We see that not only was it known to the founders, it was already being used in the universities and quoted as operative law in the fledgling courts of the United States justice system.

So. What exactly did he say?

First, anyone who reads the item whether translated or in the original French has to admit he never used the exact phrase "natural born citizen".

But!!! On reading what he said, the wording and the context, there can be no doubt at all of EXACTLY what he meant.

I shall here cite the section in English and in the original Francais.

The section is from Chapter XIX, entitled "One's Country and various matters relating to it". Sec. 212, Citizens and Natives. It is on pps.

87 of the english translation.

"The members of a civil society are it's citizens. Bound to that society by certain duties and subject to it's authority, they share equally in the advantages it offers. Its natives are those who were born in the country of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot maintain and perpetuate itself except by the children of it's citizens, these children naturally take on the status of their fathers and enter upon all the latters rights. The society is presumed to desire this as the necessary means of its self-preservation, and it is justly to be inferred that each citizen, upon entering into the society, reserves to his children the right to be members of it. The country of a father is therefore that of his children, and they become true citizens by merely tacit consent. We shall see presently whether, when arrived at the age of reason, they may renounce their right and the duty they owe to the society in which they are born. I REPEAT THAT IN ORDER TO BELONG TO A COUNTRY ONE MUST BE BORN THERE OF A FATHER WHO IS A CITIZEN; for if one is born of foreign parents, that land will only be the place of one's birth, and not one's country."

(the above is from: Les droit des gens, Translation of the 1758 edition, Charles G. Fenwick, published Carnegie Institute of Washington,

Washington, 1916.

En Francais.

Les citoyens sont les membres de la Societe Civile; Lies a cette Societe pars certains devoirs, & formie a son Autotiteil particiant avec egalite a les avantages. Les NATURELS, ou INDIGENES, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays, de Parens Citoyens. La Societe ne pouvant se soutenir & se perpetuer que par les enfans des Citoyens; ces enfans y suivent naturellement la conditionn de leurs Peres, & entrent dans tous leurs droits. La Societe est cenflee le vouloir ainfi; par une suite de ce qu'elle doit a la propre confervation; & l'on presume de droit que chacque Citoyen, en entrent dans la Societe; reserve a les enfans le droit d'en etre membres. La Patrie des Peres est dons celles des enfans & ceux-ci deviennent de veritables Citoyens, par leur simple consentement tacite. nous verrons bien-tot; si parvenus a l'age de raison, ils peuvent renoncer a leur droit, & ce-qu'ils doivent a la Societe dans laquelle ils sont nes. Je dis que pour etre d'un pays, IL FAUT ETRE ne D'UN PERE CITOYEN; car si vous y etes ne d'un Etranger, ce pays sera seulement le lieu de votre naissance, sans etre votre Patrie"

Note: The above is from the 1758 edition. As with early American English, it was common to write an "S" as an "f". I have tried with my limited knowledge of French to make the corrections, and think this is pretty darn close to the original.

Another note: Vattel uses the phrase "Les Naturelles ou Indigenes" which pretty much translates to "The naturals or natives"

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Now I doubt anyone can read the above and not know EXACTLY what the founders meant by "natural born citizen". They wanted someone who, in Vattels words, "Belong(ed) to the Country, which means a person born on the soil of parents who were citizens, at the very least born on the soil OF A FATHER who IS A CITIZEN!

If Obama was born in Hawaii, were both his parents Citizens? No. Was Obamas FATHER a citizen? No.

Does Obama "Belong to the Country?"

Vattel, and the founders of our great Republic, would have to say no.

[Abd al-Rahiim]

John Marshall, certainly the most renowned and authoritive jurist of the time, on the other hand, goes directly to Vattel's relevant section and says that it is controlling.

If you're talking about "The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)," then I'd like to note the following:

1. Justice Bushrod Washington delivered the Opinion of the Court, not Chief Justice Marshall.
2. Chief Justice Marshall cited de Vattel in his CONCURRING opinion. Since when is a concurring opinion controlling?
3. The translation Chief Justice Marshall used did not use "natural-born citizen"! Rather, it stated, "The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens," which is almost a literal translation of de Vattel's French.
4. The phrase "natural-born" or "natural born," without the hyphen, doesn't appear anywhere in any of the Opinions to Venus.

[AmericanVictory]

I never said that Marshall wrote the majority opinion but what he said is quite clear in his reference to Vattel’s phrasing as being the source of the concept. He scarcely can have been referring to anything else. As such I believe he carries geater weight and is more persuasive than yourself. And what about St. George Tucker?

[AmericanVictory]

I never said that Shanks mentioned Vattel. All I said was it made it clear that the Framers looked to the law of nations on matters of citizenship and not to the English common law. To maintain to the contrary, that they looked to English common law, is to go against his ruling in that regard. I have already said what the case is about when I spoke of it as being what Scalia was referring to.

[WhiskeyX]

No, they incompetently assumed Chester Arthur was born in Ireland or Canada. They were so intent upon trying to prove the fallacy, they failed to see the obvious in front of their noses.

Because the records were sealed for 70 years, the invesitgators did not have access to the naturalization records which would have disclosed the father’s naturalization after the son’s birth.

[WhiskeyX]

No, they incompetently assumed Chester Arthur was born in Ireland or Canada. They were so intent upon trying to prove the fallacy, they failed to see the obvious in front of their noses.

Because the records were sealed for 70 years, the invesitgators did not have access to the naturalization records which would have disclosed the father’s naturalization after the son’s birth.

[Abd al-Rahiim]

I never said that Marshall wrote the majority opinion but what he said is quite clear in his reference to Vattel’s phrasing as being the source of the concept.

Then what is the relevance of Chief Justice Marshall's concurring opinion? As I asked, since when is a concurring opinion controlling? To paraphrase WhiskeyX, it's just dicta. Moreover, your claim that "It is quite clear that the translations of the time use the phrase [natural-born citizen] and that the authorities of the time understood it the way that they did" is decisively shown to be false, given that a DIRECT QUOTE of Chief Justice Marshall's concurring opinion reveals that he either used a separate translation or translated de Vattel himself: "The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens."

The Venus

Furthermore, neither "natural-born" nor "natural born" appears anywhere throughout any of the opinions to The Venus.

What about St. George Tucker? What he says may corroborate your position; I'd have to read it first, but The Venus certainly does not.

[Abd al-Rahiim]

To maintain to the contrary, that they looked to English common law, is to go against his ruling in that regard. I have already said what the case is about when I spoke of it as being what Scalia was referring to.

What was Shanks about? Was it about defining who a natural-born citizen is? Or was it about

...whether her subsequent removal with her husband operated as a virtual dissolution of her allegiance, and fixed her future allegiance to the British crown, by the treaty of peace of 1783. Our opinion is that it did.

As for "maintain[ing] to the contrary," could you please explain to us, then, why Chief Justice Waite, in his dicta to Minor, found "resort" in "common law," instead of "the law of nations"?

[Abd al-Rahiim]

They were so intent upon trying to prove the fallacy, they failed to see the obvious in front of their noses.

You say that the "records" were sealed for seven decades, and so investigators couldn't discover that Arthur's father was naturalized after his birth. If you please, answer me one question: Did they know that Arthur's father was born on Irish soil as an Irish subject? They didn't know about the post-birth naturalization, fine. But did they know that?

[WhiskeyX]

To paraphrase WhiskeyX, it's just dicta.

No, I wrote the dicta are not binding precedents precedents on the decisions of later courts. That in no way says they are not authoritative statements which may or may not be used by a later court to inform its own decision.

[WhiskeyX]

The Democrats hired a fellow named Hinman to investigate Chester Arthur. Chester Arthur gave an interview to the newspaper/s disclosing his father emigrated from Northern Ireland to the United States. Chester Arthur lied, because his father emigrated from Northern Ireland to Canada, before emigrating from Canada to the United States. Hinman did not have access to the immigration records that we have today. He had no means of knowing where to look in order to find the naturalization papers for the father. Since the son was born in the United States, no naturalization papers for Chester Arthur could exist.

[WhiskeyX]

Why'd he consult "common law" instead?

You keep trying to utilize Supreme Court cases which attempt to define the Constitution's natural born citizen phrase as equivalent to and arising from the definition used by British common law. Does this mean you are arguing the natural born citizen phrase of the Constitution is defined by and the same as the British natural born subject?

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

A deeper discussion regarding Vattel is found here. I noticed that Wong Kim Ark was mentioned and googled to this page. While I’m no lawyer or authority, this issue is not easily dismissed. It had been debated here for years.

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

It is unfortunate that the “supreme” Court has proven itself to be anti-Constitution at times. We cannot look to the Kelo Court, for example, as being godlike. Even back in the 1800s, we had creeps in that court.

The real question is not court precedent. The real question is Original Intent. I’m no lawyer, but it seems to me that many misinterpretations arose from the amendment passed after the Civil War, such as “no establishment of religion” being mushroomed to ridiculous heights.

Did people after the Civil War intend children of foreign fathers to be qualified as “natural born” and President? Our Founding Fathers did not, so who did?

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

Interesting point. So the supreme Court did not have all the facts during that trial?

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

Linking Bushpilot’s earlier Vattel thread to here ...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2499410/posts?q=1&;page=451

Also, an excellent summary about the Founder’s original intent and Vattel:

a Natural Born Citizen
http://www.birthers.org/USC/Vattel.html

I summarize it here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2712868/posts?page=120#120

[WhiskeyX]

Which trial and facts?

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

Sorry, FRiend, for causing confusion. I was referring to your earlier post about Chester Arthur. I must have misunderstood.

[Abd al-Rahiim]

That in no way says they are not authoritative statements which may or may not be used by a later court to inform its own decision.

And yet, none of the "authoritative statements" I have quoted directly from Minor or Wong Kim Ark convinces you. Why is that?

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

Smack! So Wong Kim Ark does NOT dispute Vattel/Natrual born? “Native born” instead of “natural born”. Anti-certifigaters have been parroting a lie?

[Repeating your link]

United States v. Wong Kim Ark (No. 18)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html

[Arthur Wildfire! March]

Did they actually clear up the meaning of “natural born” in Wong Kim Ark or did they use the term, “native born”?