No, I got the 1796 edition of the Law of Nations.
The "First American Edition ; Corrected and Revifed from the lateft London Edition."
The 1796 edition maybe rare on the Internet.
The cover page
The title page.
Posted on 02/07/2011 1:37:31 PM PST by devattel
No, WKA wasn’t written by the Founders. Vattel, by the way, was NOT a “Founder”!
WKA does discuss, at length, what the Founders would expect the phrase natural born citizen to mean, based on the common legal terminology at the time of writing. Original intent.
No Vattel wasn’t a founder, he just wrote the tome the founders used extensively in crafting the Constitution, thats all.
WKA is illustrative in marking that there is a difference between Natural Born Citizen, and Citizen.
The rest of your interpretation is a combination of wishful thinking and creative interpretation.
WKA was a citizen, but not a Natural Born Citizen.
Fail Rogers, again.
“Fail Rogers, again.”
Mighty bold talk for someone whose arguments have never, ever prevailed in court...
I’m a ballsey chick, what can I say?
The definition has never been nailed down in any court, so you are in the same boat Mr. Rogers.
No, I got the 1796 edition of the Law of Nations.
The "First American Edition ; Corrected and Revifed from the lateft London Edition."
The 1796 edition maybe rare on the Internet.
The cover page
The title page.
The word "natural" in the phrase 'natural born subject' is a misnomer.
Since Great Britain and its empire is under a monarchy, it was understandable to use the word "natural" as the monarchy wanted to ensure obedience from even the foreigners in their empire.
" 40. Vattel, Droit des Gens, Ed. de 1775, 4º.
2. " " 3 v 12º.Londres, 1758."
http://catdir.loc.gov/catdir/toc/becites/main/jefferson/88607928_ch16.html
The Marshall Court pages 27-28
“that a conflict between an act of Congress and the law of nations must be resolved in favor of the law of nations.”
http://www.fclr.org/fclr/articles/html/2010/Socarras.pdf
The "first American version" according to the title page.
I posted a 1796 Law of Nations edition in post #125.
Here is page 162.
The "first American version" according to the title page.
Correct. These were Dumas editions printed in the United States. But they were in French. These editions were corrected reprints of a "faulty" edition shortly after de Vattel's death in 1767. It is not clear whether it was in 1773 or 1775 that this poorly rendered edition was printed prior to the Dumas edition in 1775.
One thing is clear from this passage. Franklin was fluent in reading and speaking French. What is also historically obvious is that Franklin was the Ambassador to France between 1776 and 1785. He was proficient and educated in the advanced art of noble French culture.
Without Franklin's injection of de Vattel's work into both the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, the protections of our liberties may have very well been lost today.
Ms. WKA is also clueless of the meaning that he still has his knee-pads strapped on, LOL!!!
Thank you for explaining Vattel’s words/writings, however, you will never gain anything by discussing this with ms. WKA, aka a trolling FINO, aka ms. rogers. You are are just wasting your time with this fifth column, or Quisling!!!
page 4 footnotes @11
the Court has long held, as discussed below, that Congress is not master of, but rather subject to, the law of nations
http://www.fclr.org/fclr/articles/html/2010/Socarras.pdf
page 55 Notes of a Course of Lectures on Vattel's Law of Nations http://www.archive.org/stream/notesacourselec00vattgoog#page/n61/mode/1up/search/citizen
Has anyone tried contacting Bryan A. Garner, the editor of Black’s Law Dictionary, to inform him of his publication’s massive oversight regarding the meaning of natural born citizen?
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.