Vattel

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

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.

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.

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 There are a number of historical references that prove that which the reader can find on his own.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.

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.

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.

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.

"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,

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.

You put in a lot of work so I am not going to try to insult you or your beliefs, but it may be time to come out of the rain. Very intelligent people with law degrees who are ON OUR SIDE have repeatedly shot all these arguments down.

at the very least born on the soil OF A FATHER who IS A CITIZEN!

FATHER... please. We no longer live in a patriarchy. Women's rights abolished legal patriarchal responsibility.

In an age of artificial insemination do you honestly under the wildest imaginations of the cosmos believe that Obama will be impeached because his father was foreign which was known to everyone before he was elected and known to the Congress and Supreme Court who put him in office.

If you are trying to win some philosophical question about the Founding Fathers intention or their "heart of hearts" on the nbc clause, well you MIGHT be right. If you have any other expectation, you are only hurting yourself.

Does Obama "Belong to the Country?"

Unfortunately yes. And the more distracted we are the more likely he will reside in 1600 Penn Ave. for another 4 years. Just tonight Mark Levin took a caller who was frantic saying we can't wait 18 months. He begged Mark, is there anything we can do to get him out before then.. Mark said, "No." 1961 does not matter. 2012 matters.

Here are translations from editions 1778, 1758 and 1883.

Emmerich de Vattel - 1778 Edition
BOOK 1, CHAPTER 19
Of Our Native Country, and Several Things That Relate to It
§ 212. Citizens and natives.
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.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Volume I A Photographic Reproduction of Books I and II of the First Edition 1758 with an Introduction by Albert de Lapradelle
TRANSLATION OF THE EDITION OF 1758 By Charles G Fenwick WITH AN INTRODUCTION BY ALBERT DE LAPRADELLE
CHAPTER XIX One's Country and Various Matters Relating to It
The members of a civil society are its citizens. Bound to that society by certain duties and subject to its authority, they share equally in the advantages it offers. Its natives are those who are born in the country of parents who are citizens. As the society can not maintain and perpetuate itself except by the children of its citizens, these children naturally take on the status of their fathers and enter upon all the latter's 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 their mere 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 LAW OF NATIONS
FROM THE NEW EDITION, BY
JOSEPH CHITTY, Esq. Barrister At Law
WITH ADDITIONAL NOTES AND REFERENCES,
By EDWARD D. INGRAHAM, Esq.
PHILADELPHIA:
T. & J.W. JOHNSON & CO., LAW BOOKSELLERS,
No. 535 CHESTNUT STREET.
1883.
§ 212. Citizens and natives.
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.

What you are proposing is nothing less than the overt overthrow of the literal and the figurative intent of the Constitution and its authors when they denied the Office of the President and the Office of the President to any person whosoever owed allegiance to a foreign sovereign at birth or after birth once the Constitution was adopted in 1797.

If you cannot and will not respect the Constitution and its requirement for Amendment even in this matter, then what do we have left but mob rule by force of arms in the hands of the Democrat Party who is overthrowing it without Amendment or ratification by the sovereign States? If the subversion of the Constitution is not stopped here and now, then when and where? What will be the issue, the Commerce clause, the War Poweers Act, something else? How bad does it have to get? How many Americans must die before the Constitution and its most obscure provisions become important enough to you?

What is next, an alien citizen such as Roger Calero will be allowed to run on the ballots for President in a third Presidential electon without so much as a peep from people like you?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.