2003 Supreme Court: For 200 years domestic law of the US recognizes the Law of Nations(Vattel)

US Supreme Court ^ | October Term, 2003 | USSC

[PA-RIVER]

It seems they are referring to Vattel, in part, with another source, but yes, Vattel is first and paramount in the early years of the republic as the governing law for international affairs, the supremes acknowledging it.

The second source is James Kent Commentaries, and these were not published until 1826, so NBC is the Vattel definition for the Constitution, per the supremes. They are stateing that International law was Vattels “Law of Nations” when the USA was founded. Period. It was the bible for international law when our constitution was written.

From your document :

“When the United States declared their independence, they were bound to receive the law of nations, in its modern state of purity and refinement.” Ware v. Hylton, 3 Dall. 199, 281 (1796) (Wilson, J.). In the years of the early Re-public, this law of nations comprised two principal ele-ments, the first covering the general norms governing the behavior of national states with each other: “the science which teaches the rights subsisting between nations or states, and the obligations correspondent to those rights,” E. de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Preliminaries §3 (J. Chitty et al. transl. and ed. 1883) (hereinafter Vattel) (footnote omitted), or “that code of public instruction which defines the rights and prescribes the duties of na-tions, in their intercourse with each other,” 1 James Kent Commentaries *1.

George Washington did not pick “Natural Born Citizen” out of thin air, so he did not need define it. Vattel did.

Obama, as understood by the founders, is not a Natural Born Citizen. Period.

What is James Kent Commentaries were not publisd until 1826, so NBC is the Vattel definition, per the supremes.

[American Constitutionalist]

" I think at this point it’s better to allow him to be repudiated on his merits (lack thereof) in 2012 by the voters.

I think it’s more important for the GOP to cut the size of government than diddle around with Obama’s citizenship.

Remember, in 1994 Gingrich let the congress start in on the impeachment path and the end result was a Clinton rebound and reelection. "


Ohhhhh Geeezzz... not this crap again, here we go again...
Repeated often enough, and people will start to believe it...
The reason why Republican ever lose is because they don't do the will of the people and go wishy washy on us..i.e. RINOS....

[PA-RIVER]

NBC has an origin. It's from Vattel.

And the Communist African Muslim is not an NBC. Sorry to break the news. He may have gotten a pass because he has a tan skin and walks with a shuffle and speak great Ghetto slang when he needs to. He even knows how to play b-ball.

But He's still a Kenyan born son to a Kenyan Daddy, no matter how much ghetto talk he can sling.

[Non-Sequitur]

NBC has an origin. It's from Vattel.

Of course it is.

And the Communist African Muslim is not an NBC. Sorry to break the news.

Maybe someday the Supreme Court will agree with you.

[PA-RIVER]

Well, I'm glad we agree on something. Vatells NBC is the definition, and he states the Father must be a US citizen.

So we agree, the scumbag in the oval office is not an NBC.

[rxsid]

"If so, why is this not being said over and over with these links, or did I miss something?"

It has been. Not this specific reference, but many others that show beyond a doubt that NBC = born in country to citizen parents, by folks like bushpilot1, many many other FReepers as well as a number of the eligibility attorney's for about 2 years now.

The main issue is finding a court with the guts to take on this unprecedented Constitutional crisis. Or, a Congress with the guts to launch an investigation into his secretive background.

Great job BP1.

[rxsid]

"I think at this point it’s better to allow him to be repudiated on his merits (lack thereof) in 2012 by the voters."

Then your OK with his precedent being set that it's just fine that 1)People can knowingly vote into office (that requires a NBC) someone born with foreign citizenship and 2)redefine a Constitutinal phrase by a simple majority vote and not the Amendment process?

In other words, even though he's a usurper...he shouldn't be removed from office because we should instead focus on his policies exclusively.

Really?

[danamco]

Well you were NOT here in 2007/08!!!

[noinfringers2]

Just as you put it in my copy of the Constitution, Article 1 Section 8.

[noinfringers2]

My preference is to work on government reform i.e. obamaform right along with the eligibility issue. I abhor that this man would get all the perks of a bona fide president/ex-president. There surely is enough as to the birth issue at this time to have some true patriotic congressperson with standing to argue it with every appropriate piece of legislation being considered.

[noinfringers2]

First I noticed you did capitalize ‘Law of Nations’ as to Vattel’s book (as done in the Constitution) and second you did not capitalize “law of nations’ when you noted a histoical term. I tend to think your spelling was correct usage.

[CDR Kerchner]

Hi Bushpilot1,

This Supreme Court case has been previously cited in the Kerchner et al v Obama et al briefings to the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia in regards to the applicability of Vattel and the Law of Nations and in some of Mario’s prior writings about Vattel and the Law of Nations in his blog at: http://puzo1.blogspot.com

Several have asked Mario about the case you just posted and whether it has been called to the attention of the court in the Kerchner v Obama court filings. It has. The comment below is passed along from Atty Mario Apuzzo.

---

I have already cited this case. See:

Given that citizenship affects “the behavior of nation states with each other,” Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692 (2004), the Founders would have looked to the law of nations to define it for the needs of the new nation. Clearly, citizenship is both a national and international matter which affects the relations among nations. The Founders and Framers would have looked to the law of nations to define citizenship in the new nation and not the English common law.” http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/11/framers-used-emer-de-vattel-not-william.html

The Framers did not define an Article II “natural born Citizen” because they did not see a reason to. It was a term that was well defined by the law of nations and well-know by civilized nations. Given that citizenship affects “the behavior of nation states with each other” (Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692 (2004), all civilized nations knew what the definition of citizenship was. The Founders believed that the common law was discoverable by reason and was forever present, a “discoverable reflection of universal reason.” Sosa. So since the Constitution did not define “citizen” or “natural born Citizen,” “resort must be had to the customs and usages of civilized nations” found in the law of nations, as defined by scholars, jurists, and commentators of the time who devoted “years of labor, research and experience” to the subject. The Paquete Habana, 175 U.S. 677, 700 (1900).
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/08/law-of-nations-and-not-english-common.html

I also cited the case to the Third Circuit in my reply brief. See page 12.

Mario

---

CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
Lead Plaintiff, Kerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al

[bushpilot1]

Thanks for your message.

The court rejected this USSC opinion?... “For two centuries we have affirmed that the domestic law of the United States recognizes the law of nations.”

Did they state the law of nations is not part of domestic law?

Wanted to ask if know about the word..Kind and its relationship to natural and native.

[kosciusko51]

Not registered != Not here...

[kosciusko51]

I understand the NBC issue, and have seen that before. But the threads I saw referred to a congressional law passed AFTER the constitution was ratified, which can generate a chicken-and-egg dilemma. The Vattel argument appears to be relatively new, at least on a quick search of FR posts. But Vattel predates the constitution, setting the precedent.

Also, I'm not a lawyer, but it appears that supposed short form provided by the Obama camp still disqualifies him from the office, and since it is an admission against interest by him it could be accepted into evidence against him regardless of its authenticity.

[Lurking Libertarian]

The Constitution capitalizes almost all nouns, as was the practice in the 18th Century-- just look at the sentence you quote: "Piracies," "Felonies," "Seas," and "Offenses" are all capitalized. Those are not all names of books.

Do you think the Constitution was authorizing Congress to punish violations of Vattel's book?

Note also that in the 2003 Supreme Court case saying that "the law of nations" is part of U.S. law, the phrase is not capitalized.

[danamco]

I’m no lawyer, but why wasn’t something like this explored in ‘08?

Had you been here you would have seen it was widely discussed!!!

[Jack Black]

See you're "Ohh Geeze, not this crap again" and RAISE YOU "OH GEEZE NOT THIS CRAP AGAIN"....

We elect a full GOP House based on the fact that our economy is choking to death and our governmnet is bankrupt. They promise to cut back the tentacles of governmnet, reduce regulation, and lower taxes so we can all get back to work. We start a grass-roots movement: TEA Party. Taxed Enough Already. We have huge rallies on the mall asking for the government to live within it's means, and objecting to Obamacare.

We send our new reps to Congress and they start some ridiculous dog and pony show based on an 1787 French Legal Dictionary ...

Millions of Americans scream out in horror

OH GEEZE NOT THIS CRAP AGAIN!

[kosciusko51]

The Vattel angle was discussed in '08? Where? If I a search, I don't find Vattel in a headline until 2009, and there are only 9 of them.

This means that it wasn't being discussed openly by conservative pundits or conservative media until '09. While it may have been buried in the vast number of posts on this subject, Vattel was not a prime point of emphasis. If you and a couple of FReepers were discussing it, good for you. But where was someone like Ann Coutler, a lawyer by trade, bringing this up?

And no, I don't read every damn posts on Obama's eligibility, as most are rehashes of "show us the long form". Also, I missed the previous posts on Vattel because, not being a lawyer, I did not realize the significance.

So excuse me for coming late to this.

[American Constitutionalist]

When good men do nothing, evil triumphs.....

ok, have it YOUR way.....

Us birthers ?
Let's stop now,
Let's give up the fight because it's sooooo hard, and there might be riots and we are so careful of what the media and liberals might think of us
Let these folks have it THEIR WAY and let Obama wreck our constitution and our country some more because they are soooooo afraid of riots and what the Media ( MAY THINK ) of us Republicans/Conservatives and that we ( MIGHT LOSE ) in 2012 because of investigations and impeachment hearings...
Go ahead you wimps, have it YOUR WAY....
The only reason why Republicans lose is because they go weak kneed and wishy washy on us....
You guys keep talking about what happen in the 90s with Clinton, and the " WHAT IFS " .... as if it's a sure thing the same thing will happen again.....

Since you want Obama to say in office and wreck our country some more instead of upholding and respecting the Constitution of the United States... then, go head have it YOUR WAY ! ... No more criticizing of Obama by you guys since you want to keep him there ... you have no right to be critical of Obama since you want to keep him there.
I definitely would not want you in in the trenches in the heat of the battle fighting the enemy because you would trow up the white flag of surrender.
I am so sick and tried of having to worry about what the media and what the Liberals think about us.....