Legal scholars and studiers of the founding of our country and the framers of our Constitution reference this book as a core, contemporaneously written legal reference book, The Law of Nations, used by the framers of our Constitution. It was written in 1758 and was used as a college text book in America from c1770 on. Ben Franklin received three copies of the French edition from the editor Dumas in 1775 for use by Franklin and the Continental Congress.
Quote of section #212, Chapter 19, Book 1, Law of Nations, by Vattel, written in 1758:
"§ 212. Citizens and natives.
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 natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. "
Here is a link to the original in French. You read it and then try and tell me the Founding Fathers got it wrong.
Your hero, Mark Levin isn't the Constitutional scholar he thinks he is.
I remember a caller asking him (Levin) about the Law of Nations and he basically called the guy a dummy and hung up on him. Like I said earlier, Mark Levin is a coward.
Crickets.......
* The founding fathers weren’t citing Vattel, or else they would have used any of several different terms used to translate Vattel into English (”natives,” where “les indigens” would have connoted a primitive people), or left “les naturels” as a term of art, as Franklin’s copies did.
* Vattel writes several things which are contrary to the founding fathers’ concepts of natural law. In fact, Vattel’s work, as a whole, would have been an excellent rebuttal to the Declaration of Independence.
* Vattel failed to consider what became commonplace in the US immediately: immigrants from different nationalities. Under Vattel’s definitions, such a person would be defined as having no homeland. Such a situation would be considered abominable by the Natural Law authors the founding fathers do cite.
* You insist Vattel was commonly taught in US universities at the time of the founding. Which ones? There were precious few. Or is this based, as I have seen several NBC activists do, on misreading Marshall’s assertion that “When we avert to the course of reading generally pursued by American statesmen in early life, we must suppose that the founders of the Constitution were intimately acquainted with those wise and learned men, whose treaties on the law of nature and nations have guided public opinion on the subject of obligation and contract”? Given the relative newness of Vattel’s work, this almost certainly refers, instead, to Locke, Montesquieu, Coke, Blackstone, Aquinas, and Hobbs. Indeed, these authors are all directly cited, unlike Vattel. Any echo of Vattel probably comes from his intellectual sire, Wolff. Keep in mind that when Franklin gushes to Vattel’s editor, he is receiving a gift from as a diplomat.
Oh, dear. You haven’t actually ever read Vattel, have you? Your link is to a NBC activist selectively citing one section.
Perhaps if you actually read Vattel, you’d realize that he draws three classes of people, citizens, temporary inhabitants, and permanent inhabitants, who he calls a lesser type of citizen. This would set the alarm bells off that Vattel is alien to our notion of citizenry.
You see, when we grant citizenship, we call that “naturalization.” This is in contrast to someone who is “natural-born.” Which category is the person who is born of immigrants? If he is not natural-born, he must be naturalized; but when does that happen? See, Vattel has no concept of “naturalized.” To him, a permanent resident is always, literally, a second-class citizen. He may never become a “naturel.” Hence, why I wrote that under Vattel, children of immigrants are never incorporated into society (and why the confederates loved him).
See, in Vattel’s France, a non-citizen inhabitant was not typical of what an immigrants is to America. They were passers-through, such as Gypsies, or diplomats, or migrant laborers (like Freemasons), or religious order members; they were aliens, not immigrants. Hence, it would be frivolous to say this Gypsi tribesmen is French, while his parents are Austrians, and his brother, Swiss.
Oh, dear. You haven’t actually ever read Vattel, have you? Your link is to a NBC activist selectively citing one section.
Perhaps if you actually read Vattel, you’d realize that he draws three classes of people, citizens, temporary inhabitants, and permanent inhabitants, who he calls a lesser type of citizen. This would set the alarm bells off that Vattel is alien to our notion of citizenry.
You see, when we grant citizenship, we call that “naturalization.” This is in contrast to someone who is “natural-born.” Which category is the person who is born of immigrants? If he is not natural-born, he must be naturalized; but when does that happen? See, Vattel has no concept of “naturalized.” To him, a permanent resident is always, literally, a second-class citizen. He may never become a “naturel.” Hence, why I wrote that under Vattel, children of immigrants are never incorporated into society (and why the confederates loved him).
See, in Vattel’s France, a non-citizen inhabitant was not typical of what an immigrants is to America. They were passers-through, such as Gypsies, or diplomats, or migrant laborers (like Freemasons), or religious order members; they were aliens, not immigrants. Hence, it would be frivolous to say this Gypsi tribesmen is French, while his parents are Austrians, and his brother, Swiss.