Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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.

Photobucket


TOPICS: Government
KEYWORDS: naturalborncitizen
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-79 last
To: Lurking Libertarian

Doesn’t proper grammar require capitalization of explicit proper names? If so there is no disparity that you would point as examples. I too took notice of the lower case spelling in the SCOTUSA decicision. But is the argument to be that SCOTUSA did not know about the spelling as certainly capitalized in the Constitution (at least in my copy) or deliberately chose to negate the words as given in the Constitution? I think not. More likely it could be a not too well educated clerk writing the decision. Of course it is not acceptable for an ordinary citizen to believe Court justices are infallible in their thinking and writings.


61 posted on 11/11/2010 10:39:14 AM PST by noinfringers2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: noinfringers2
Doesn’t proper grammar require capitalization of explicit proper names?

Today, yes. In the 18th Century, all nouns, proper or not, were capitalized Look at any sentence in the COnstitution-- all the nouns are capitalized.

62 posted on 11/11/2010 10:48:24 AM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: noinfringers2
Doesn’t proper grammar require capitalization of explicit proper names?

Today, yes. In the 18th Century, all nouns, proper or not, were capitalized. Look at any sentence in the COnstitution-- all the nouns are capitalized.

63 posted on 11/11/2010 10:48:44 AM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: noinfringers2
Doesn’t proper grammar require capitalization of explicit proper names?

Today, yes. In the 18th Century, all nouns, proper or not, were capitalized. Look at any sentence in the Constitution-- all the nouns are capitalized.

64 posted on 11/11/2010 10:48:44 AM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: noinfringers2

Sorry for the multiple posts— my computer hiccuped.


65 posted on 11/11/2010 10:50:01 AM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Jack Black
When this country has citizens who will not uphold, respect, and protect the Constitution of the United States, then, all that our veterans have done, all that they sacrificed has been done in vain.....

We honor our Vets today because they have given the ultimate sacrifice to DEFEND, and PROTECT the Constitution of the United States...
What part are you doing to uphold, to defend, and to protect the Constitution of the United States ? or do you think that the Constitution is not worth protecting ?


66 posted on 11/11/2010 10:59:06 AM PST by American Constitutionalist (The fool has said in his heart, " there is no GOD " ..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: American Constitutionalist

You have an view of the Constitution based on tenditious interpretations of sources lying outside the Constitution itself which you belive somehow creates this enormous imperative that we drop everything else and focus on your obsession.

I disagree. The nation-ending disaster is not Obama serving out his term, even if he is not qualified to be POTUS based on your interpretation (which, by the way, might be correct). We have survived other illegitimate leaders. In fact I believe at least one did have a similar situation, Chester Arther perhaps?

The nation ending disaster is the fiscal one that we are on the verge of. That is what must be fixed. It’s sad to me that so many conservatives have turned into obsessive/compulsives and are literally willing to see the nation destroyed just to have some fleeting satisfaction of seeing Obama replaced with Biden.

Yes, the Constitution is worth protecting, but we’ve been doing a crap job of it for 60 years. Bush’s entire Presidency was filled with unconstitutional policies, for instance where in the Enumerated Powers is the POTUS and Congress given the power to save Africans from their diseases casused by their sexual practices?

Which do you thin would have bothered Washington more, the USA giving away 150 million dollars to a terrorist group in Palestine *OR* a President being elected whose father was a British subject when he was born? Which do you think would concern him more: the pending bankruptcy of the USA, the 100 Trillion dollars in debt and unfunded mandates, or the Hospital that the POTUS was born in.

Sure, the Constitution to worth protecting. When you fight a war you pick your battles. That’s called strategy. It is a terrible strategy to take our newly minted Congress and send them off on the “validate the 18th Century interpretation of Natural Born and remove Obama from office.”

I’m sorry you can’t see that, but a LOT of very conservative, very Constitution loving, non-RINO, American patriots do. Which is why your desires in this matter are going to be ignored.

We’re playing for all the marbles here and this issue, despite it’s importance to you, is a sideshow.


67 posted on 11/11/2010 1:34:32 PM PST by Jack Black ( Whatever is left of American patriotism is now identical with counter-revolution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Jack Black

It is not obsession - it is the constitution, it is to avoid setting a precedent of the usurpation of the presidency.
This is not to drop everything else. This is to stop the destruction at its roots, as opposed to what you obsess with - to fight the symptoms. Who rings up trillions in deficits - more than all previous presidents combined? why do you think we have to fight all these marxist/commie policies? - because you are allowing a usurper to lead the marxists/commies in the fiscal destruction of USA!
Chester Arthur’s usurpation of the presidency was not known when he was serving. Obama’s is known, yet all of you knowingly validate his illegitimacy!
It is not just the interpretation of a few. It was just pointed out where the pres requirement came from yet all you can say is ‘your interpretation’!
Obama will not be replaced with Biden since Biden is hand-picked by the usurper - everything the usurper has signed or appointed/chosen will be null and void.
Removing the usurper is certainly not for the ‘fleeting satisfaction’ of anything, but for the logical, sane way to expell the leader of the fiscal disaster that you so worry about to the exclusion of all else!
So you are saying just because we have not been able to do a good job protecting the constitution for 60 years we should just forget about protecting it now, to the point of letting an ineligible person take over the presidency illegally?
You know it is not just about who obama’s father was - it is about his constitutional eligibility to be POTUS! If he is ineligible then it is totally unacceptable to let him keep the office illegally - it certainly is much more bothersome than USA giving away 150 million dollars to a terrorist group in Palestine - and who gave the money away? the usurper you want to keep up there!
Pending bankruptcy of USA, the 100 Trillion dollars in debt and unfunded mandates are all results of leaving the usurper there! We don’t care where he was born. We just care that he is constitutionally eligible. Can you understand that!?
People like you who distort the factual arguments may wish this issue to be a side show and try hard to convince people to ignore it. But like it or not, this is the main issue that goes to the heart of the matter. Ignore it to your own detriment.


68 posted on 11/11/2010 3:49:16 PM PST by chrisnj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: American Constitutionalist
Washington's fear... a foreigner holding the reins of our military.

Lets do a hypothetical.

20 years from now, the son of a Chinese citizen arrives on the American political scene. The people adore him. He wins the presidency. After all, We need good relations with China, so this might help. We are behind on payments. He's gold, he was born in San Francisco. Yes, he was the son of a Chinese man, but NBC no longer applies after Obama. Afer all, He is “owed” because we have never had a Chinese president.

The communist Chinese call him up, and tell him to put all naval battle groups in a row, in the pacific. This is his fathers country calling, and he was expecting the call. Secretly , unlike Obama, he thinks Americans are dumb and lazy, and need an ass whupping for defaulting and screwing his fathers country, his country. In act, they need a good beotch slapping.

He lines up all battle groups within a 10 miles radius.
China Nukes the battle groups with one single nuke. All our soldiers are stranded in Iran.

Our Chinese president goes on TV, and he pretends to be in shock at the horror. He orders all troops to stand down to avoid further conflict until diplomacy can heal the divide.

The next day, tanks roll in through Los Angeles, Washington and NY, with the Chinese army is collecting what is owed and burning every house.

While this is happening, Our president publicly begs China to stop. He gets on the phone in private, and congratulates his compatriots. They stop, and our president thanks them, publicly, for heeding his calls for peace. He then gets the Nobel peace prize.

Our quaint, outdated and old constitution used to forbid this possibility before Obama came along.

69 posted on 11/11/2010 5:32:19 PM PST by PA-RIVER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1
"If they were referring to Vatel’s book then wouldn’t they have capitalized “Law of Nations”? The NS Spin game stops.

It's quite convenient how newer sources and liberal swingers continue to BASTARDIZE the very document instead of just showing how it was written...

Image and video hosting by TinyPic
70 posted on 11/11/2010 7:24:38 PM PST by BocoLoco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Jack Black

“Millions of Americans scream out in horror

OH GEEZE NOT THIS CRAP AGAIN! “

They say that about everything they’re completely ignorant on. Half the nation doesn’t even know what the Constitution says. The other half knows just enough to be DANGEROUS.

The reason we’re in this MESS to begin with is all the trampling of the simple rules put in place by intelligent framers 220+ years ago. It starts with qualifications, then works its way down from there. And it’s evident most dingbats in this nation would rather eat McDonald’s food and watch porn on cable or sat TV than understand why the hell we even have the Constitution to begin with.

Nothing will change until we reqlinquish our ignorance to our history and accept certain inalienable truths. I’ll cite so many references to breaking these truths and trace them to the fiasco we’re in now so much so it will make your head explode.

Keep downplaying the shredding of the Constitution. It’s simply a fool’s errand, one which reveals your complete lack of respect for its law.


71 posted on 11/11/2010 7:33:49 PM PST by BocoLoco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: kosciusko51
Therefore, even a person born in the US is not a natural-born citizen if both parents are not citizens. Therefore, the Hawaii BC is a moot argument.

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

You understand this perfectly. The birth certificate is irrelevant. Obama is not, never was, and never will be, eligible to hold the office of president of the USA.

Every world leader knows this, enemies and allies. Every Democrat and Republican in the Senate and House of Representatives knows this. Every state legislator in the 50 states knows this. Every state governor knows this. Every media pundit knows this.

Now you know this.

Sleep well.

72 posted on 11/11/2010 7:53:09 PM PST by meadsjn (Sarah 2012, or sooner)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Jack Black
As I said have it YOUR way.
We would not be in this current crises if our leaders and Washington have been faithful to the US Constitution...
So now ? in your opinion the US Constitution is a outdated document ?
it's not a 18th century interpretation.
Why do people keep bring up Chester Arther as if we should give Obama a pass on it, and as if there is something that can be done about Chester Arther ? that was over 100 years ago.
As far as your concerned, even if it's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as President of the USA, you fine with it, so as long as the Republicans don't make waves to impeach him because we are so afraid that we will lose in 2012 because the public won't like us if we try to have investigations and impeachment.
Yeah, that's the ticket, leave a foreign loyal President in office so he can do more damage in the name of being to timed to do anything about.
Side show ? get real, over 50 % of Americans now question Obama's eligibility, it's the minority who believe he is a natural born citizen.

73 posted on 11/11/2010 8:31:28 PM PST by American Constitutionalist (The fool has said in his heart, " there is no GOD " ..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: chrisnj
" You know it is not just about who obama’s father was - it is about his constitutional eligibility to be POTUS! If he is ineligible then it is totally unacceptable to let him keep the office illegally - it certainly is much more bothersome than USA giving away 150 million dollars to a terrorist group in Palestine - and who gave the money away? the usurper you want to keep up there! "

Yes, Jack Black ( even that name should give you pause to think the source your talking to ) tried to set up the strawman argument... however, some things are lost on them.
We would not be having the US giving money to the Palestine terrorist group ( also forgot that Obama is the enemy of Israel ) if it were the fact Obama gave the green light for it... yeah, argue the fact that the US gave the $ 150 million to a terrorist group, but, forget who gave the green light for it.
74 posted on 11/11/2010 8:48:00 PM PST by American Constitutionalist (The fool has said in his heart, " there is no GOD " ..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: American Constitutionalist

Check yourself, AC. You’ve been here for a year. I’ve been here since 1998. 12 years. If you want to know about my handle you could read my home page. We don’t disagree on goals, we don’t even disagree on Obama’s eligibility.

I put a lot less emphasis on the law as our savior. The law has not been kind to us for the last 30 to 40 years. Who do you think will judge your theory of Obama eligibility? Looking forward to a 5-4 decision in the Supreme Court. Are you that confident in Justice Kennedy? I’m not. And the current status of the dozens of eligibility cases indicate that my misgivings are well founded.

What is you optimism founded on?

Or are you putting you faith in the Senate? They did SO WELL with the cut and dry Clinton case, I can understand that. NOT! Do you really think there are 66 votes there to convict and remove Obama?

Of course there are not. Dream on. And while you are dreaming try to consider the effect you suggested course of action will have on the critical, easily swayed 15% of voters who just voted for the GOP. Think they will understand your points under the withering attack from the NY Times, all the news networks (probably including Fox), and their daily newspaper.

Politics ain’t beanbag brother. It’s great to have standards and positions, but I’m in it for the long haul.

If you are still here in 2021 you can buy me a beer. Until then I’ll take your opinions with a grain of salt.


75 posted on 11/11/2010 10:42:34 PM PST by Jack Black ( Whatever is left of American patriotism is now identical with counter-revolution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Jack Black
Just for starters, go ask Jim Robinson yourself about me, he will vouch for me.
I have been here for 6 years, not 1 year, I had to change my screen name because I had problems with my password.
Check myself ? as I said before, go talk to Jim Robinson, he will vouch for me.
My opinion ? that is the opinion of many Freepers that they have doubts about Obama and his eligibility, and so does Jim Robinson also......
76 posted on 11/11/2010 11:25:43 PM PST by American Constitutionalist (The fool has said in his heart, " there is no GOD " ..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: American Constitutionalist

I have doubts about Obama’s eligibility too.


77 posted on 11/12/2010 9:56:16 AM PST by Jack Black ( Whatever is left of American patriotism is now identical with counter-revolution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Jack Black
Why do you have doubts about Obama's eligibility ?
To allow this cancer, infection, this fraud, this injustice to fester and putrefy to continue to cause more long term damage, would it not be prudent to have law enforcement, the courts, the people, Congress to at least check and see if he was really eligible to be president ?
Keeping the integrity of the United States Constitution, where law enforcement officers, our military, have sworn a oath to uphold and to protect is not some side show, or " on the fringe " .
* THE PEOPLE * and the US Constitution is the very essence of our being as a free country.
The US Constitution is a legal ( Covenant ) between God, The People, and the Government.
When in this country we have groups, citizens, who otherwise could care less about the Constitution, or who are not willing to uphold and protect that sacred document that was ratified, and bought in the blood of those patriots who died in the Revolutionary war, then ? all that our vets have done, all that they have sacrificed to defend and protect the US Constitution and protecting the people has been done in vain...
78 posted on 11/12/2010 7:31:56 PM PST by American Constitutionalist (The fool has said in his heart, " there is no GOD " ..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Jack Black
Semper fidelis , and what does it mean ?

It means, Always Faithful....

Our US Constitution , Our Military, Our police deserve our Semper fidelis....
Our military personal, and our police deserve that the citizens support them in spirit, in effort, and in prayer as they defend and protect our US Constitution.

Semper fidelis
79 posted on 11/12/2010 8:28:20 PM PST by American Constitutionalist (The fool has said in his heart, " there is no GOD " ..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-79 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson