Hillsdale and other pundits have buried our first law book, Vattel’s Law of Nations, cited more during the first thirty years after ratification, than any other legal source (Grotian Society Papers 1972, Ruddy; Arthur Nussbaum, A concise History of the Law of Nations) They have been cowed into saying no word about Jefferson's choice of Law of Nations for our first law school, at William and Mary in 1779. They don't mention the six copies of Law of Nations sent by Franklin to the Continental Congress in 1763 and 1778. They have ignored the only definition for a citizen provided in The Constitution before 1868, when the 14th Amendment provided the basis for naturalized citizens. They don't explain that a definition never amended or redefined, which redefinitions must be explicit, is the law. They have ignored the report of historians, supported by archival records from New York's first public library in 1789, that the first, and only book on Washington's desk on his first day as President was Vattel’s law of Nations. They know better than Alexander Hamilton who, in his September 15 1790 letter to Washington, noted :
“But Vatel, perhaps the most accurate and approved of the writers on the laws of nations, preserves a mean between these different opinions. This is the sum of what he advances:...”
Citizens are the foundation of a republic. The character of The President is the only citizen our framers felt compelled to proscribe, leaving Congress to come up with “a uniform rule for naturalization.”, Article 1 Section 8. Hillsdale is presumed to have read Mark Levin's Liberty and Tyranny, and know that definitions used by the Constitution were intentionally left out of the text, relegated to the common language of the framers, to preserve the meanings when the meanings of words change.
Our greatest Chief Justice, John Marshall, had there been any doubt, removed that doubt with his usual piercing clarity about the definition accepted by the Court, citing Vattel in The Venus. Marshall was on the Virginia Ratification Congress, and fought in the Revolution. Do our historians presume to know that he didn't mean what he told us, and Chief Justice Waite affirmed in order to resolve Elizabeth Minor's complaint?
Hillsdale will likely present lots about our history which is true, but have shown that their claims to independence from the federal government don't mean much. They will first, avoid controversy. They cannot have steered around so central a provision of our Constitution without a reason. Whether the reason was coercion, fear of Alinsky ridicule (Alinsky's 5th Rule), they show a lack of the courage of the convictions they profess to teach. They know better than to lie, as the left has done repeatedly, editing Supreme Court decisions to keep the knowledgeable and curious off the trail. But Hillsdale could have countered the lies of the left. Instead, like Levin, like Hannity, like Limbaugh, like Hedgecock, they simply pretend there is no Chief Justice Marshall who explained who are natural born citizens, no Chief Justice Waite, no Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes, or that Congressman John Bingham, the abolitionist who tried Lincoln's assassins and both wrote and sponsored the 14th Amendment, didn't really mean what he twice told the House in 1866:
“I find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen….
Whether they mean to or not, Hillsdale is serving the purposes of enemies of our Republic, enemies who knew their power would trump the too loudly proclaimed beliefs in the principles of our framers and founders, because these enemies could threaten the livlihoods of the protectors of truth. Read the remarkable Amicus Brief written by Attorney Leo Donofrio http://www.scribd.com/doc/79112841/AMICUS-BRIEF-by-Leo-Donofrio-in-Georgia-Presidential-Eligibility-Case-202, and ignored by the Muslim Georgia Judge Malihi, who ignored the law just as Obama did, by ignoring a subpoena. Donofrio's analysis was guided by his certainty that self contradictory structure in Wong Kim Ark, juxtaposing U.S. Common law with English common law was not an accident. Justice Gray was appointed by an ineligible president, Chester Arthur. Having an objective can make history much more interesting, and coherent. Donofrio's analysis shows, by connecting the precedent confirming the Article II Section 1 definition in Minor, cited by Gray in Wong Kim Ark, what happened when justices and legal historians misconstrued and misquoted, and misused fuzzy language. Donofrio dissects Justice Gray's Wong Kim Ark, which helps the reader to understand why our framers, John Jay and Washington, specified a natural born citizen. Donofrio's work illuminates that the Constitution is law. He has uncovered a remarkable chain of errors and intentional misdirection which led to what is probably a mistaken interpretation leading to to anchor babies, the children of aliens born on our soil.
Donofrio's work as a historian, discovering and documenting the ineligibility of President Chester Arthur om 2008, whose violation was the same as Barack Obama's, would be all over the nation's media if it didn't point at the same deficiency in Obama. Not a word in the media, outside of FR. Arthur was born to an alien (British) father. He covered it up with phony allegations, which he orchestrated, that he was born in Canada, or Ireland; he too hid his birth certificate, which confirmed his birth in Vermont. It would be a surprise to hear that Hillsdale has acknowledged that remarkable discovery, used already by the Indiana Supreme Court in a mock decision, Ankeny, given the fearful scurrying around the truth so much in evidence.
Another attorney, Mario Apuzzo, has written dozens of essays as he explored the historical foundations of the common law familiar to our framers, to prepare for a lawsuit filed by Naval Commander Charles Kerchner. Mr. Apuzzo is a wonderful and patient teacher, and, he is not afraid of the truth. What Mario Apuzzo's attempt to force the Supreme Court to honor their sole charter for jurisdiction where Constitutional interpretation seems to demonstrate how little the Constition means, as well as the remarkable vagueness of the term standing.
Colleges and Universities are businesses, and susceptible to the threats of dictatorial federalism. You may well learn from Hillsdale's lectures, but don't expect them to address the important Constitutional questions of our time. Read original sources, and the writing of people who are committed to the truth like Donofrio and Apuzzo. The institutions, including Hillsdale, are too afraid of the left to honestly discuss the foundations of our Republic. At a time when those foundations are being attacked, don't waste your time with those afraid of the truth. There may be faculty at Hillsdale who will speak openly, and there are certainly faculty at other colleges who know the truth, and have kept quiet, but knowledge of The Constitution is Hillsdale's public identity, the theme of their marketing, and demonstrably a false premise.
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
Why don’t you email Dr. Arnn or one of the other course instructors and see if you get a response?