And you know how I bet this happens??? I bet when they go to law school, the professors didn’t teach them, “Now when you are trying to discover what the Founders meant by something, go look up what dead Swiss and French people wrote. And maybe some Germans, too. And just ignore what all the English and American courts said.”
Obviously you have never heard of "Blackstone". He's a dead brit. They were our enemy you know, but your side is always quoting him in these arguments. Apart from that, you do not seem to have the wherewithal to comprehend that this issue is of trivial concern to law students compared to the great body of law which they are required to learn in order to become attorneys. That you would think they would spend any time researching documents and case law on this without some other compelling need, demonstrates that you simply have no sense of proportion. Or perhaps just no sense.
Yep! I bet that is how all these judges became sooo stupid. (This is sarcasm, in case you didn’t get it.)
Yeah, you seemingly missed Chief Justice of The Supreme Court Marshall's specific quoting of Vattel as the basis for citizenship in the case of the Venus. If you had the ability to comprehend, you would realize you have been blown out of the water and are now lying on the bottom of the ocean. You simply can have NO ANSWER for the FACT that the Supreme Court case in 1814 specifically quotes Vattel's definition.
Until you stare into the abyss of your own WRONGNESS, you will never grow up. Here are the quotes again, and link to the case.
1. The writers upon the law of nations distinguish between a temporary residence in a foreign country for a special purpose and a residence accompanied with an intention to make it a permanent place of abode. The latter is styled by Vattel "domicile," which he defines to be, "a habitation fixed in any place, with an intention of always staying there." Such a person, says this author, becomes a member of the new society, at least as a permanent inhabitant, and is a kind of citizen of an inferior order from the native citizens, but is nevertheless united and subject to the society without participating in all its advantages.
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Marshall:
The whole system of decisions applicable to this subject rests on the law of nations as its base. It is therefore of some importance to inquire how far the writers on that law consider the subjects of one power residing within the territory of another, as retaining their original character or partaking of the character of the nation in which they reside.
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 the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights."
You read that other case, read THIS ONE and LEARN what you are talking about!
Well, before I had to call in the heavy artillery (Fabia Sheen, Esq.), I did notice this:
“In deciding whether a person has obtained the right of an acquired domicile, it is not to be expected that much if any assistance should be derived from mere elementary writers on the law of nations. They can only lay down the general principles of law, and it becomes the duty of courts to establish rules for the proper application of those principles.”
MERE ELEMENTARY WRITERS ON THE LAW OF NATIONS. . .
Oh, sure. That is good. Oh, I bet you are still having trouble sitting down after Fabia tore you a “new one”!!! I am still laughing about “Perry Mason” and chimpanzees...Oh Tee Hee! And the “ship” thingy!!! OH MY!!!