Fair enough. I'd really like to apologize for being the source of it. I'm seriously not trying to be.
----
Here's the way it appears to me: when I say the law of nations has to do with the relations between states, not internal politics, you counter with a quote from Tucker about the 10th Amendment that references Vattel.
Okay, may have already found one. Relations between States, I got. What do you mean by 'internal politics'. As in the federal governments relations to the states, a states internal relation with itself?
-----
Then when I ask if you believe the 10th was based on Vattel (as opposed to Tucker just using it as a point of comparison), you say "I don't know."
LOL! I should have warned you. You are dealing with someone whose own mother told her she was honest to a fault [true story]
Anyway. What you're asking me for is certain knowledge, and, to me, if I can't stand up in front of a judge and swear to it, it's not certain knowledge. I wasn't THERE so I can't answer it either way!
Oh, Dude, I am so, SO sorry!
-----
When I ask you for an example of how the distinction between "natural" NBSes and "proclaimed" NBSes played out in practice, you bring up the inheritance issue. When I show that the inheritance issue was resolved in favor of the two types being treated the same way, long before Constitutional deliberations started--and that the resolution was called a "remedy"--
I really though you pulled it from Ark and it came from Blackstone. I had no idea it was as old as it was on the outset until I couldn't reconcile it with what I remembered of Blackstone. That's when I started questioning it.
Blackstone was the English standard, that's why Tucker annotated it.
-----
When I say that Vattel's book wasn't a rule book for nations and we didn't have to adopt his view of citizenship, you counter with a quote from Wilson that says "the law of nations is the law of the people."
I was using Wilson's Lectures on Law to show that the law of nations was, indeed a rulebook for nations. First, because it operated the way the Constitution was originally supposed to. With the people at the top of the government food chain. Secondly, that the government acknowledged the fact, and third because yes, I know of the popularity of Vattel at the time and a great deal of what Wilson says is similar.
-------
When I say he's not talking about Vattel's book, you ask me for evidence that he's not;
Okay. Back to the honesty thing. I put something out to back up, if you will, what I'm saying. Now, questioning is fine, but you're asking me to prove a negative after I just proved a positive...while you still haven't proven anything yet.
Maybe it's just a bad habit of mine. I've been on way too many threads where I offer proof after proof after proof, and I'm continually asked for more. I've spent literally days doing this, so I've finally just gotten to where I go 'your turn'.
-----
and when I offer other examples of his use of the phrase that obviously don't refer to the book, you ignore them
Please do show me anything I missed. I try to catch everything, but if you made a point and I ignored it, please do point it out to me.
-----
I've ended up with the impression that you run from one point to the next without bothering to stitch them together into a consistent, coherent argument. When a particular point gets uncomfortable, you just drop it. It's difficult to pin you down.
Not my intention at all. I hope you understand that.
-----
I'm not sure I have the energy to continue with what seems like a fruitless game. If you're going to cite something and then, when asked if you think it really means what you implied, just say "I don't know," then I don't think there's any point to continuing.
Again, always your call. I've sincerely enjoyed it and am most certainly not trying to bring frustration into your life. Life does enough of that on its own.
Maybe it's just my bad presentation skills.
And now I'm convinced you're discussing in good faith and not just jerking me around. I'll try and keep a lid on any frustration. I have an intimidating deadline and have been working hard all week, so I'm more on edge than usual.
What do you mean by 'internal politics'. As in the federal governments relations to the states, a states internal relation with itself?
I was thinking of using the word "intranational," but I wasn't sure that'd be clear. I just mean the political questions that are entirely a nation's own business, that don't have to do with its relations with other nations. Like who's a citizen and who gets to be president.
What you're asking me for is certain knowledge, and, to me, if I can't stand up in front of a judge and swear to it, it's not certain knowledge. I wasn't THERE so I can't answer it either way!
Oh, Dude, I am so, SO sorry!
No, that's cool. I have a lot of "as I understand it" and "as far as I know" in my posts for the same reason. I'll read your posts in that framework, then.
I really though you pulled it from Ark and it came from Blackstone.
I'm sorry, but by all rights the mistake could have been discovered at the outset had you put a source up for what you were contending to be true.
You didn't even know the year, all you gave was a name.
I can see where the confusion came from, though actually I did give a source, sorta. This started with my saying that "natural-born subject" didn't require inheritance from parents (392), and you asked what English law that was based on (396), and I said there was a lot of discussion of it in Wong Kim Ark (405) and quoted one reference, prefaced with "The English statute of 11 & 12 Will. III (1700). c. 6." Whew.
you're asking me to prove a negative after I just proved a positive...while you still haven't proven anything yet.
And I think you're asking me to prove a negative: you posted a quote and said it referred to the book "Law of Nations" rather than just the generic term "law of nations," and asked me to prove it didn't.
Please do show me anything I missed. I try to catch everything, but if you made a point and I ignored it, please do point it out to me.
In (480), in response to what I thought was a request to prove that Wilson wasn't talking about the book, I posted three other sentences from the same speech (or whatever it was) that I thought clearly could not possibly refer to the book. I suppose it's possible that he went back and forth between meaning the book and meaning the generic term without ever indicating which one, but that seems unlikely.
I've sincerely enjoyed it and am most certainly not trying to bring frustration into your life. Life does enough of that on its own.
I knew we'd agree on something sooner or later.