[Red Steel]

I believe I've found a clincher that probably some Patriot put online to be found. James Madison, the principal author of the US Constitution, said this in forming our Federal Union during the Philadelphia Convention in 1787.

Madison-

"The two extremes before us", he said, "are a perfect separation and a perfect incorporation of the 13 States. In the first case, they would be independent nations subject to no law, but the law of nations. In the last, they would be mere countries of one entire republic, subject to one common law. "

The Citation:

* The Nature of Our Federal Union Reconsidered
* Alpheus Thomas Mason
* Political Science Quarterly
Vol. 65, No. 4 (Dec., 1950), pp. 502-521
(article consists of 20 pages)
* Published by: The Academy of Political Science
* Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2145661

Two points are made.

Madison here spoke of the law of nation would govern our states. The authority on subject of the law of nations was de Vattel who every Founding Father understood and read.

And two, Madison spoke of one common law of these United States - not English Common law - which would be the law of the land.

[Red Steel]

Ping to #248 as it dovetails with the ping you received to #246.

[bushpilot1]

My laptop has fried. No back up files.

In google books came across something interesting regarding The Law of Nations.

In a chapter of Vattel it purposes states can form into a nation and remain independent, similiar to what rxsid posted above.

The Founders read this, debated it and based on the Law of Nations the 13 colonies joined to create the United States.

The United States was born based on a book by an “obscure” (Obots term) Swiss author.

Have tried to locate the book several times but cannot.

Will keep looking. The Founders had the time to read the Law of Nations and we should find the time.

Perhaps the Law of Nations is like the Bible in the movie The Book of Eli.

[rxsid]

"And two, Madison spoke of one common law of these United States - not English Common law - which would be the law of the land."

That's right. "common law" was not 100% exclusive to England which is a "common" asumption to the detractors.