But the internal operation of the country IS the relations between the States. At least it was supposed to be....Tucker ties the law of nations TO the 10th Amendment and the 10th is strictly an internal operation. Ergo, the words of Tucker illustrate that Vattels law of nations does have an internal Constitutional operation, because the 10th Amendment has no affect on the federal government's relations with other nations. I don't think we're going to get any further with this. What I understood you to be saying (and we've established that I don't always understand so good) was that since Tucker tied the LoN to the 10th, that meant the 10th was based on the LoN, which proved that the Founders relied on the LoN for guidance on internal matters. While I was saying that it seemed more likely to me that Tucker, in commenting on the 10th, said "in fact, it's just like the way Vattel describes relations between states in a federal republic," without implying (much less proving) any causation. It's a fine distinction, and until Tucker shows up here, probably not one we'll be able to resolve.
Okay, do you see any point in going back to all this?
Not really, though my question to you still stands: I said "natural-born subjects" could have alien parents, you asked for a reference, I gave that law as a reference, you said there were two types of natural-born subjects, I asked whether there was ever any functional difference between the two, and you pointed to that law. If we're not going back to that, do you have any other examples of where the distinction between a "proclaimed" NBS and a "natural" NBS made a functional difference?
So there are 3 pieces of evidence illustrating Vattel's work was both well known and in circulation at that time.
I've never denied that.
And you basically, despite all 3 pieces of evidence, asked me to prove it was Vattel and not a generic law of nations Wilson was talking about.
Does that mean you think I should have to directly trace back to Vattel every usage of the generic term 'law of nations' we come across?
Of course not, because I don't think most of them do trace back to Vattel. Again, the way I see it is that you quoted Wilson in support of the idea that our nation used Vattel as a "rule book." I think the burden of proof is on you to show that his use of the term "law of nations" referred specifically to Vattel and not to the generic term, and I don't think just showing that Vattel was popular and was quoted a lot does that.
My son's psychology textbook is called "Learning Psychology." I assume it's a popular Psych 1 textbook. But I think it would be foolish of me to parse a sentence like "I really like learning psychology" as an endorsement of the book.
If you want to take an honest, unjaundiced view of the past, you have to forget everything you think you already know, and start, like the Founders did......from the beginning. You will never get a clear view of that time trying to look through the warped lens of the present.
I've really tried to do that. When I first heard the eligibility objections, my response was "Whaaaa...?" But rather than just take someone's word for it, I've read the arguments from both birthers and anti-birthers, I've read the relevant chunks of Minor and Ark and Ankeny, I've read all the historical excerpts you and Jeff have provided, and I've tried to figure out for myself what they meant. But I'm also wary of starting from "first principles" (or "common sense" or "natural law") because in my experience, what most people mean by those terms is "what I think." I'm interested in what the Founders thought as revealed by their words and actions, not in trying to figure out how they must have agreed with me.
Thanks for the kind words. And let me ask you something I asked the group in another thread and never got an answer to: what would it take for you to conclude you're wrong, that natural-born citizenship didn't depend on parentage? For me, it would be a clear statement from a court that a particular person was not an NBC because they didn't have citizen parents. As far as I know, there's nothing like that. But what would convince you?
What I understood you to be saying (and we've established that I don't always understand so good) was that since Tucker tied the LoN to the 10th, that meant the 10th was based on the LoN, which proved that the Founders relied on the LoN for guidance on internal matters. Correct.
-----
While I was saying that it seemed more likely to me that Tucker, in commenting on the 10th, said "in fact, it's just like the way Vattel describes relations between states in a federal republic,"
It's a fine distinction, and until Tucker shows up here, probably not one we'll be able to resolve.
Possibly, but from what I can see it may be a distinction without a difference. Mostly because there was actually very few things that did fall under federal jurisdiction when it came to the relationship between the States. Just my 2 cents.
--------
If we're not going back to that, do you have any other examples of where the distinction between a "proclaimed" NBS and a "natural" NBS made a functional difference?
This is a guess on my part, but from what I can see, the difference between this act and Blackstone is the term 'denizens', which were basically aliens that got special permission from the King to reside there.
I'm totally lost on this one. The only thing that could possibly come to mind would be that the 'thing to be remedied' was the ability of the King to proclaim subjects natural-born?
Maybe too many people that had been waiting in line got ticked because the King was trading status for favors? They were a pretty hedonistic group with the hunting and the wenching....and they weren't a bit shy of it either! LOL!
Conjecture is fun, but it ain't fact, so yeah, I'm stumped.
----
But I think it would be foolish of me to parse a sentence like "I really like learning psychology" as an endorsement of the book.
A fair assessment, but how would you feel if your son was a psychologist and said "I use this textbook in my practice".
That is, in essence, what Franklin said.
-----
I've read all the historical excerpts you and Jeff have provided, and I've tried to figure out for myself what they meant. But I'm also wary of starting from "first principles" (or "common sense" or "natural law") because in my experience, what most people mean by those terms is "what I think."
Yeah, they do the same thing with Constitutional law. Try to snip a piece here and there instead of seeing that if ALL the pieces don't click into place....somethings wrong.
-----
I'm interested in what the Founders thought as revealed by their words and actions, not in trying to figure out how they must have agreed with me.
CONGRATULATIONS! You just passed my benchmark for *honest researcher*!
-----
what would it take for you to conclude you're wrong, that natural-born citizenship didn't depend on parentage?
For me, it would be a clear statement from a court that a particular person was not an NBC because they didn't have citizen parents.
Don't look any later than the 14th Amendment. To my knowledge, the speeches on the floor of the House and the Senate was about the last time the original definition of 'natural-born citizen' was generally acknowledged. After that, everything became 'citizen of the United States'.
As far as I know, there's nothing like that. But what would convince you?
LOL! Tough question. Primarily because I know natural law and positive law are not the same thing.
To convince me, that would take a lot.
But I will flatter myself long enough to think that I'd consider another of the Law of Nations versions commonly known to the Founders that said such a thing might be enough to explore that avenue to see where it should lead. I will continue looking through things, well, because I never stop doing so.
The more you learn the more you realize just how ignorant you are! That's the way I feel about myself at this point in time, anyway.