Article, and lively conversation. - SP's too.
Thanks, GOPJ.
. . . . bbl
Posted on 02/07/2011 1:37:31 PM PST by devattel
SYNOPSIS:
Vattel’s Law of Nations was translated anonymously into English several times in the eighteenth century. The first edition of 1760 was based on the French original Droit des gens of 1758. A Dublin translation of 1787 is remarkably fluent and elegant, but it does not include the substantive notes of the original nor, more importantly, the notes added to the posthumous French edition of 1773 and intended by Vattel for a second edition he did not live to complete. Several English editions, including the 1916 Classics of International Law edition, are similarly flawed and based on the edition of 1760. However, two English editions from the end of the eighteenth century include Vattel’s later thoughts. One, from 1793, contains a pagination error. This has been corrected in the revised version, London 1797, and the latter forms the basis for the present edition. The 1797 edition has the benefit of a detailed table of contents and margin titles for subsections.
There is no modern edition of The Law of Nations, but facsimiles of the popular nineteenth-century editions by the London barrister Joseph Chitty have appeared in recent times. These annotated editions (first in 1834) and their reissue with further notes by Edward Ingraham (first in 1852) were based on the 1797 London edition. Chitty helpfully identified the notes that distinguished the 1797 edition from the earlier English translation. He sought, however, to add much more to the text, as he explained in a preface written in Chancery Lane in November 1833:
Many years have elapsed since the original work was published, long before the invaluable decisions of Sir William Scott, Sir C. Robinson, and Sir John Nichol, and other eminent Judges in the Courts of Admiralty, and Prize and other Courts; and the last edition upon which any care was bestowed, was published in ad 1797; since which time, and especially during the last general war, many most important rules respecting the Law of Nations were established. The object of the present Editor has, therefore, been to collect and condense, in numerous notes, the modern rules and decisions, and to fortify the positions in the text by references to other authors of eminence, and by which he hopes that this edition will be found of more practical utility, without interfering with the text, or materially increasing its size.
In consequence, Chitty’s text is overloaded with legal citations based on the case law of the sea that emerged in the Napoleonic era. Vattel’s work had become a textbook for law students in both Britain and North America.
Some of Chitty’s notes remain useful and have on occasion been incorporated into the editorial apparatus for this edition. The present edition includes new footnotes, elucidating dates, events, works, and persons referred to by Vattel. Posthumous additions to the French edition of 1773, which were then translated in the edition of 1797, are identified as such in the new notes. Translations of Vattel’s Latin citations have come from the best modern editions, particularly from the Loeb Classical Library. For each translation, reference to the edition used can be found in the bibliography of authors cited. In cases where no translation could be found, or where the context of Vattel’s work required an amended translation, the editors undertook the translation, and this is signaled in the text by “trans. Eds.” All of the preceding new material has been added to the 1797 text as numbered notes or as double square-bracketed inserts within Vattel’s original notes.
Chitty lamented in 1833 that “he proposed to form an Index, so as to render the work more readily accessible; but, in that desire, he has been overruled by the publishers.” The present edition adds bibliographical and biographical details of authors cited in the text, following up Vattel’s own sometimes obscure references. The bibliography of authors cited includes and explains the short titles employed by Vattel in his footnotes.
Page breaks in the 1797 edition have been indicated in the body of the text by the use of angle brackets. For example, page 112 begins after <112>.
WRONG. Incorrect. Vattel says that England chooses to naturalize such children at birth. They are naturalized citizens under the natural law of nations. Hope this helps.
There you go, you even have the quote. Why were you lying in post 28 if you had the quote proving your lie right in front of you?
According to Ketcham’s book on Madison: “So well did he[Madison] master the universal language[Latin] of learning that forty years later he wrote long footnotes correcting the English translations of Latin works by the international law authorities Grotius, Pufendorf and Vattel.”
You DO realize that Vattel is using naturalize in a way that differs from US and English law, don’t you?
I realize that my nation, the united States of America was founded on natural law, and England was not. Vattel is writing about natural law.
Are you going to apologize for your lies on this thread?
The language of the Constitution - a legal language - was defined by common law. That is how they got their definition - from the current law at the time of writing.
I haven’t lied. You have been stupid.
Article, and lively conversation. - SP's too.
Thanks, GOPJ.
. . . . bbl
"Odd. Birthers keep telling me they have different meanings..."
I think they have been telling you that "Citizen" versus "Natural Born Citizen" likewise "Naturalization" versus "Natural Born Citizen" have different meanings.
The bamster epitomizes the reasoning of the NBC clause yet you defend him and question it
You're a strange one....Mr. WKA
Odd, you keep showing up here and spouting the same old bs....including WKA.
1771 definition of native (which your boy claims to be)
Mr? rogers is an infamous troll, don’t bother.
Welcome to FR, thank you for your contribution.
read
But the writers of the Constitution didn’t use native, did they? Had they done so, the case that they were following Vattel would be stronger. Nor did they say “born of citizen parents”, which they could have written, using 4 words instead of 3.
They wrote natural born citizen, which had an established legal meaning rooted in the phrase natural born subject, and that meaning included those born in the country of alien parents.
“Before our Revolution, all free persons born within the dominions of the King of Great Britain, whatever their color or complexion, were native-born British subjects; those born out of his allegiance were aliens. . . . Upon the Revolution, no other change took place in the law of North Carolina than was consequent upon the transition from a colony dependent on an European King to a free and sovereign State; . The term ‘citizen,’ as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term ’subject’ in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people, and he who before as a ’subject of the king’ is now ‘a citizen of the State.”
State v. Manuel, 4 Dev. & Bat. 20, 24-26 (1838)
“And if, at common law, all human beings born within the ligeance of the King, and under the King’s obedience, were natural-born subjects, and not aliens, I do not perceive why this doctrine does not apply to these United States, in all cases in which there is no express constitutional or statute declaration to the contrary. . . . Subject and citizen are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives, and though the term citizen seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, subjects, for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.”
James Kent, COMMENTARIES ON AMERICAN LAW, pg. 258 (1826)
You have to be thee most disgusting pos[t]ers on this site, pbuy.
Hmmmmmmmm?
WTF is the difference??????????????
Well, do you have to be born a citizen to be a Senator? Could you have been born overseas, and still be a Senator?
” Citizenship: Under English law, no person “born out of the kingdoms of England, Scotland, or Ireland” could be a member of either house of Parliament. While some delegates may have admired the “strictness” of this policy, no framers advocated a blanket ban on foreign-born legislators. Instead, they debated the length of time members of Congress should be citizens before taking office. The states’ residency qualifications offered moderate guidelines in this regard. New Hampshire’s state senators needed to be residents for at least seven years prior to election. In other states, upper house members fulfilled a five, three, or one-year requirement, while state representatives completed a residency period of one to three years.
The Virginia Plan made no mention of citizenship when Edmund Randolph introduced it to the convention in May. Two months later, the Committee of Detail reported a draft of the Constitution. Article V, section 3 included a four-year citizenship requirement for senators. On August 9, Gouverneur Morris moved to replace the four-year clause with a fourteen-year minimum. Later that day, delegates voted against citizenship requirements of fourteen, thirteen, and ten years before passing the nine-year provision, making the Senate requirement two years longer than that for the House of Representatives.
At the convention, delegates viewed the nine-year citizenship qualification as a compromise “between a total exclusion of adopted citizens” and an “indiscriminate and hasty admission of them.” While they were concerned that the Senate, especially, might be subject to foreign influence, they did not wish to close the institution to naturalized citizens of merit. Two foreign-born framers expressed these opposing considerations. According to Pierce Butler, recent arrivals were dangerously attached to their countries of origin, a particular concern for senators whose role would include review of foreign treaties. From his own experience, he believed that naturalized citizens would need sufficient time to learn and appreciate American laws and customs before they could serve in government. For James Wilson, however, lengthy citizenship requirements “discouraged and mortified” everyone they excluded. He agreed with Benjamin Franklin that a strict policy would hinder positive immigration and offend those Europeans who had supported the Revolutionary War. On August 13, Wilson moved to reduce the Senate qualification by two years. Delegates rejected his motion, and confirmed the nine-year requirement by an 8 to 3 vote.”
So you see, requiring someone to be born in the US was a stricter requirement by the Framers, and one that was expressed by the legal term they used. However, it did NOT require two citizens to be the parents.
From your ever so loving love of WKA....read and weep....
which had included all native-born children except for those who were: (1) born to foreign rulers or diplomats, (2) born on foreign public ships, or (3) born to enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation of the country's territory
What is is about obama that you come HERE and defend him so?
Disgusting, get lost and FO
Blow smoke up someone elses ass, troll. Obfuscation does not differentiate the difference in the question that I posited.
ONE MORE TIME, explain the difference between NBC and Citizen.......
From your ever so loving love of WKA....read and weep....
which had included all native-born children except for those who were: (1) born to foreign rulers or diplomats, (2) born on foreign public ships, or (3) born to enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation of the country's territory
What is it about obama that you come HERE and defend him so?
Disgusting, get lost and FO
“What is is about obama that you come HERE and defend him so?”
If you check it out, you’ll find birther threads are not my reason for being on FR...for the last 12 years!
http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/by:mrrogers/index?tab=comments;brevity=full;options=no-change
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.