Skip to comments.
2003 Supreme Court: For 200 years domestic law of the US recognizes the Law of Nations(Vattel)
US Supreme Court ^
| October Term, 2003
| USSC
Posted on 11/10/2010 12:58:10 PM PST by bushpilot1
The Court affirmed Vatell's Law of Nations as a part of US Domestic law on page 37.
"For two centuries we have affirmed that the domestic law of the United States recognizes the law of nations."
They sourced the translated edition of Chitty.
"eE. de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Preliminaries §3 (J. Chitty et al. transl. and ed. 1883"
Lets have a look at the Chitty translated edition and see what it says about citizen parents and natural born citizens.
TOPICS: Government
KEYWORDS: naturalborncitizen
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-79 next last
To: bgill
Not sure who wrote affirming law of nations a part of domestic law. Do you have an idea who it might be?
To: bgill
I see if I search for Vattel, I find 4 other post with Vattel in the title, the earliest being June of this year. I’m no lawyer, but why wasn’t something like this explored in ‘08?
To: bushpilot1
No, but this speaks to 200 years of history and the First Congress.
23
posted on
11/10/2010 2:59:36 PM PST
by
bgill
(K Parliament- how could a young man born in Kenya who is not even a native American become the POTUS)
To: kosciusko51
That's the $64,000 question. Not long ago, Justice Thomas admitted the Supremes were "evading" the question. e·vade/iˈvād/Verb - Escape or avoid, esp. by cleverness or trickery.
24
posted on
11/10/2010 3:06:02 PM PST
by
bgill
(K Parliament- how could a young man born in Kenya who is not even a native American become the POTUS)
To: Slings and Arrows; Fred Nerks; null and void; stockpirate; george76; PhilDragoo; Candor7; rxsid; ...
Article, also # 14 and # 16.
[Thanks, Slings and Arrows.]
25
posted on
11/10/2010 3:08:53 PM PST
by
LucyT
To: sourcery
They did. From Article I, section 8: "To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;" They didn't in the Supreme Court decision.
To: kosciusko51
You ask why it’s taken so long for someone to note this argument.
Fact is, this has been discussed many times for many months here on Free Republic.
It just needs to get before the Court.
27
posted on
11/10/2010 3:16:38 PM PST
by
Jedidah
To: Non-Sequitur
“The first crime in the indictment is an infraction of the law of Nations. This law, in its full extent, is part of the law of this State,” Lonchamps was found guilty.
A case was filed in state court. http://supreme.justia.com/us/1/111/case.html
The case is cited in the 2003 Supreme Court opinion.
Obama is breaking domestic law being president... a violation of Vattel’s Law of Nations.
The Court quoted Marshall.. Vattel’s Law of Nations is the law of the land.
To: bushpilot1
The Court quoted Marshall.. Vattel’s Law of Nations is the law of the land. In your dreams maybe.
To: bgill; kosciusko51
There is a second meaning of the word evade. Thomas is a word smith and was probably using it. It can be found in more detailed older dictionaries.
Evade...to be too difficult, puzzling or baffling , the flavor evades definition.
The qualifications evades or isdifficult, puzzling, baffling needs study.
from:
The New Lexicon Webster's Dictionary...encyclopedia edition
30
posted on
11/10/2010 3:41:13 PM PST
by
hoosiermama
(ONLY DEAD FISH GO WITH THE FLOW.......I am swimming with Sarahcudah! Sarah has read the tealeaves.)
To: bgill; kosciusko51; LucyT
Let's try this again...something didn't work.
There is a second meaning of the word evade. Thomas is a word smith and was probably using it. It can be found in more detailed older dictionaries.
Evade...to be too difficult, puzzling or baffling , the flavor evades definition.
from:
The New Lexicon Webster's Dictionary...encyclopedia edition
The qualifications evades or is difficult, puzzling, baffling..... needs study.
31
posted on
11/10/2010 3:49:30 PM PST
by
hoosiermama
(ONLY DEAD FISH GO WITH THE FLOW.......I am swimming with Sarahcudah! Sarah has read the tealeaves.)
To: kosciusko51
32
posted on
11/10/2010 4:06:37 PM PST
by
ataDude
(Its like 1933, mixed with the Carter 70s, plus the books 1984 and Animal Farm, all at the same time.)
To: kosciusko51
When the Constitution refers to the “Law of Nations,” they are not referring to Vattel’s book. “The law of nations” was the 18th century term for what we today call “international law.” Vattel was one writer on that subject.
To: bushpilot1
Can you copy and past from the source? I can’t open the document.
34
posted on
11/10/2010 4:46:11 PM PST
by
PA-RIVER
To: Lurking Libertarian
Chief Justice said..the source of “law of nations” written in the Constitution is from Vattel.
To: PA-RIVER
To: PA-RIVER
To: Non-Sequitur
"If they were referring to Vatel’s book then wouldn’t they have capitalized “Law of Nations”? The NS Spin game stops.
To: bushpilot1
The NS Spin game stops. But the bushpilot1 fantasy goes on...and on...and on...
To: bushpilot1
Yeah, their voices are fewer in between and slowly shutting up.
Remember back about 2 years ago, the birthers were called kooks and a fringe group that has a cause that is going nowhere ? .... and now ? their voices are saying, ahhh just leave him in office until 2012, he will be voted out.. my my, how 2 years have changed things...
Now why would they be now saying " just leave him in office and let him serve his term out until 2012 " .... so now ? they are admitting that he is a fraud ?
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-79 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson
