Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: mlo; Fred Nerks; null and void; stockpirate; george76; PhilDragoo; Candor7; BP2; MeekOneGOP; ...

“Law of Nations” is not the law. It's just a book
...
Appealing to someone's book doesn't change that.”


Instead of offering YOUR opinion — or MY opinion — let's look at an Opinion from the SCOTUS ... the folks likely to decide this in the end, anyway ...

The SCOTUS regularly uses ... you knowBOOKS — to define the intent of the Framers in SCOTUS Opinions, especially for Constitutional questions. And the Justices do not reference modern law books using the codification of the 20th century — such as an Immigration Law from 1995 to define 17th Century "terms of art" — rather the definitions, idioms and semantics used BY THE FRAMERS in "founding-era sources" available at the time of the creation of the Constitution — also in BOOKS.

To demonstrate this, here are some highlighted excerpts of the 157-page Opinion where the SCOTUS used BOOKS to define the “right of the people” and “keep and bear arms” in the landmark District of Columbia v. Heller case heard nearly two years ago:

Hint: pay attention to the LAST page — you'll find Vattel referenced there — as the SCOTUS often defers to "The Law of Nations" to establish the Framers' intent in SCOTUS Opinions:

Photobucket Photobucket
Photobucket Photobucket
Photobucket Photobucket
Photobucket Photobucket
Photobucket Photobucket
Photobucket Photobucket
Photobucket

Fully expect that when the SCOTUS understands that the Legislative branch has been UNsuccessful in nearly 30 attempts since the 1870s to define "natural born citizen", the SCOTUS will probably be forced to define it FOR Congress. AND they will use Vattel's definition.


351 posted on 09/22/2009 3:02:07 PM PDT by BP2 (I think, therefore I'm a conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 301 | View Replies ]


To: BP2

MLO is too busy swiping references and talking points from leftist websites to pay any attention to all that.


352 posted on 09/22/2009 3:04:14 PM PDT by pissant (THE Conservative party: www.falconparty.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 351 | View Replies ]

To: BP2
Fully expect that when the SCOTUS understands that the Legislative branch has been UNsuccessful in nearly 30 attempts since the 1870s to define "natural born citizen", the SCOTUS will probably be forced to define it FOR Congress. AND they will use Vattel's definition.

The only way to define natural born citizenship is as Constitutional citizenship. If there was any question as to what that entailed right after the founding, that question was put to rest with the 14th Amendment. A natural born citizen is one born under the full and complete jurisdiction in regards to the soil and not owing allegiance to any other nation by blood.

358 posted on 09/22/2009 3:44:13 PM PDT by Perchant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 351 | View Replies ]

To: BP2
So... just how WILL that WISE LATINA vote???? Nominees matter, doofuses at the GOP...
377 posted on 09/22/2009 6:59:58 PM PDT by April Lexington (Study the constitution so you know what they are taking away!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 351 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson