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

To: EnderWiggins

I will keep this ‘simple for those that can’t understand or have common sense [OK Giggles - for you]

U.S. Supreme Court
The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)
The Venus

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. This right of domicile, he continues, is not established unless the person makes sufficiently known his intention of fixing there, either tacitly or by an express declaration. Vatt. 92-93. Grotius nowhere uses the word “domicile,” but he also distinguishes between those who stay in a foreign country by the necessity of their affairs or from any other temporary cause and those who reside there from a permanent cause. The former he denominates “strangers” and the latter “subjects,” and it will presently be seen by a reference to the same author what different consequences these two characters draw after them.

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.”

“The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside there, and they are obliged to defend it because it grants

Page 12 U. S. 290

them protection, though they do not participate in all the rights of citizens. They enjoy only the advantages which the laws or custom gives them. The perpetual inhabitants are those who have received the right of perpetual residence. These are a kind of citizens of an inferior order, and are united and subject to the society, without participating in all its advantages.”

A domicile, then, in the sense in which this term is used by Vattel, requires not only actual residence in a foreign country, but “an intention of always staying there.” Actual residence without this intention amounts to no more than “simple habitation.”

Vattel says,

“Enemies continue such wherever they happen to be. The place of abode is of no account here. It is the political ties which determine the quality. While a man remains a citizen of his own country, he remains the enemy of all those with whom his nation is at war.”

http://supreme.justia.com/us/12/253/case.html

Giggles- onpen mouth- insert foot - enjoy


900 posted on 02/16/2010 12:16:55 PM PST by syc1959
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 896 | View Replies ]


To: syc1959
Thanks Syc... finally you have provided us with a larger excerpt of the ruling that allows to see precisely how misleading you have been every previous time you've referenced the Venus case. Now let us take it one step further.

What is "this point" on which the author says de Vattel "is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands?

It is absolutely not citizenship in any form, natural born or otherwise. What is it then?

Unlike Syc who lies and places a bracket saying it is "citizenship," Chief Justice Marshall tells us in pla;n English:

It is "domicile." The very issue of the case itself. In fact, he explains it just one sentence prior to the quote Syc usual begins with:

"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."

The issue is not citizenship at all... it is "domicile." And what is the Justice's conclusion based on what de Vattel has to say on that issue?

"A domicile, then, in the sense in which this term is used by Vattel, requires not only actual residence in a foreign country, but “an intention of always staying there.” Actual residence without this intention amounts to no more than “simple habitation.

No conclusions regarding citizenship at all. It's not even mentioned because it is not even being considered.

Domicile is the issue at hand in Venus. It never addresses any definition of natural born citizen, and it never refers to de Vattel for any of his opinions on citizenship. It is purely and only domicile that is the issue before this court.

But Syc apparently can't understand what he reads.
902 posted on 02/16/2010 12:32:04 PM PST by EnderWiggins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 900 | 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