Posted on 03/16/2011 7:39:43 AM PDT by bushpilot1
5. The Professor of Political Law shall deliver Lectures on Natural and National Law, Political Economy, Metaphysics, Government and History.
The Text Book on Natural and National Law shall be Vattel, with reference to Rutherforth's Institutes.
(Excerpt) Read more at books.google.com ...
BTTT
Proving again that progressives have been busy skewing and re-writing our history to help achieve their goals.
Ping - Interesting.
PATRICK HENRY, Moses Coit Tyler, The Riverside Press, Cambridge, Mass. (1887)
FYI - Vattel Ping.
everything political refers to “Wealth of Nations, Locke or Vattel
St George Tucker was the Law professor at William & Mary. An excerpt from his Appendix to Blackstone:
Nor must we forget, what was also before slightly mentioned, that a part of the present United States was first settled by a Dutch colony; and another part, by Swedes. The tract claimed by those two nations extended from the thirty-eighth to the forty-first degree of latitude, and was called the New Netherlands, comprehending the present states of New-York, New-Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and the Eastern Shore of Maryland: it was conquered by the English, and confirmed to the crown of England by the treaty of Breda in 1667. The Dutch inhabitants remained in their settlements in New-York, and a part of Jersey; the Swedes, if I mistake not, were removed from Delaware to New-York, where they likewise remained. According to judge Blackstone, the laws of England, as such, could have no allowance, or authority there; this being a conquered and ceded country, and not a colony originally planted by Englishmen: and according to his principles, also, the laws of Holland, and of Sweden, were the municipal laws of those provinces, until the period of their conquest; and so continued until other laws were imposed upon them by the crown of England. When, and in what degree, a change was made in this manner; or whether any such change was ever formally made, can only be determined by recurrence to documents not within the reach of the author of these sheets.
(snip for length)
3. Thirdly; what part of the laws of England were abrogated by the revolution, or retained by the several states, when they became sovereign, and independent republics.
And here we may premise, that by the rejection of the sovereignty of the crown of England, not only all the laws of that country by which the dependence of the colonies was secured, but the whole lex prerogativa (or Jura Coronae before mentioned) so far as respected the person of the sovereign and his prerogatives as an individual, was utterly abolished: and, that so far as respected the kingly office, and government, it was either modified, abridged, or annulled, according to the several constitutions and laws of the states, respectively: consequently, that every rule of the common law, and every statute of England, founded on the nature of regal government, in derogation of the natural and unalienable rights of mankind; or, inconsistent with the nature and principles of democratic governments, were absolutely abrogated, repealed, and annulled, by the establishment of such a form of government in the states, respectively. This is a natural and necessary consequence of the revolution, and the correspondent changes in the nature of the governments, unless we could suppose that the laws of England, like those of the Almighty Ruler of the universe, carry with them an intrinsic moral obligation upon all mankind. A supposition too gross and absurd to require refutation.
No. 09-5801 (2010 heard on Nov 10th)
Supreme Court of the United States
RUBEN FLORES-VILLAR, Petitioner
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent
BRIEF FOR AMICUS CURIAE
IMMIGRATION REFORM LAW INSTITUTE
IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT
excerpt:
The most influential legal commentator on the law of nations was Emer De Vattel and his impact on England, the American colonies, and the Founding Fathers is undisputed.8 Vattel viewed the admission of aliens as a privilege – not a right or a remedy. 1 EMER DE VATTEL, THE LAW OF NATIONS § 213 (Knud Haakonssen ed., 2008) (“The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are foreigners, who are permitted to settle and stay in the country.”). In exchange for permission to “settle and stay,” aliens were “bound to the society by their residence . . . subject to the laws of the state[.]” Id. Such allegiances were required even though a permitted alien did “not participate in all the rights of citizens.” [footnote: For examples of eighteenth century analysis of Vattel, see generally ST. GEORGE TUCKER, A LETTER TO A MEMBER OF CONGRESS (1799)]
[I]t will be sufficient to observe, briefly, that the sovereignties in Europe, and particularly in England, exist on feudal principles. That system considers the prince as the sovereign, and the people as his subjects; it regards his person as the object of allegiance, and excludes the idea of his being on an equal footing with a subject, either in a court of justice or elsewhere. That system contemplates him as being the fountain of honor and authority; and from his grace and grant derives all franchises, immunities, and privileges ; it is easy to perceive that such a sovereign could not be amenable to a court of justice, or subjected to judicial control and actual constraint. It was of necessity, therefore, that suability became incompatible with such sovereignty. Besides, the prince having all the executive powers, the judgment of the courts would, in fact, be only monitory, not mandatory, to him, and a capacity to be advised is a distinct thing from a capacity to be sued. The same feudal ideas run through all their jurisprudence, and constantly remind us of the distinction between the prince and the subject. No such ideas obtain here; at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people ; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects (unless the African slaves among us may be so called), and have none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow-citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty.
From the differences existing between feudal sovereignties and governments founded on compacts, it necessarily follows that their respective prerogatives must differ. [end quote]
and to reiterate Jay, we move on to St George Tucker and his Appendix in St George Tucker’s Blackstone:
[w]hat part of the laws of England were abrogated by the revolution, or retained by the several states, when they became sovereign, and independent republics.
And here we may premise, that by the rejection of the sovereignty of the crown of England, not only all the laws of that country by which the dependence of the colonies was secured, but the whole lex prerogativa (or Jura Coronae before mentioned) so far as respected the person of the sovereign and his prerogatives as an individual, was utterly abolished: and, that so far as respected the kingly office, and government, it was either modified, abridged, or annulled, according to the several constitutions and laws of the states, respectively: consequently, that every rule of the common law, and every statute of England, founded on the nature of regal government, in derogation of the natural and unalienable rights of mankind; or, inconsistent with the nature and principles of democratic governments, were absolutely abrogated, repealed, and annulled, by the establishment of such a form of government in the states, respectively. This is a natural and necessary consequence of the revolution, and the correspondent changes in the nature of the governments, unless we could suppose that the laws of England, like those of the Almighty Ruler of the universe, carry with them an intrinsic moral obligation upon all mankind. A supposition too gross and absurd to require refutation. [end quote]
quotes from Tucker:
[T]he exclusion from the courts of the malign influence of all authorities after the Georgium Sidus became ascendant, would uncanonize Blackstone, whose book, although the most elegant and best digested of our law catalogue, has been perverted, more than all others, to the degeneracy of legal science. A student finds there a smattering of everything, and his indolence easily persuades him that if he understands that book, he is master of the whole body of the law.[end quote]
[B]lackstone and Hume have made tories of all England, and are making tories of those young Americans whose native feelings of independence do not place them above the wily sophistries of a Hume or a Blackstone. These two books, but especially the former, have done more towards the suppression of the liberties of man, than all the million of men in arms of Bonaparte, and the millions of human lives with the sacrifice of which he will stand loaded before the judgment seat of his Maker.[end quote]
Thank you for the ping. Interesting. :-)
But then there’s that darn 14th Amendment (with two little words: “All Persons,” ratified in 1868 which changed everything. And all it was originally intended to do was to allow the Radical Republicans to punish the Confederacy for losing the War Between the States.
The Roberts Court (John Roberts administered the Oath of Office to Obama) is not going to go for it. While Bader-Ginsberg, Breyer, Kagan and Sotomayor are very open to using international law as a basis pf determining American legal decisions, Alito, Kennedy, Roberts, Scalia and Thomas are loathe to rely on a law book written by a Swiss citizen who was an expert in international law as the basis for current, 21st Century US law.
That is why not one of the nine Justices on the current Supreme Court has ever asked for a rebuttal brief from Obama’s attorneys on any of the 13 Obama eligiblity appeals that have thus far reached the High Court.
The way Petitions for Writs of Certioari work at the Supreme Court is that if any of the nine Justices is interested in an appeal, they read the Petition of the Appellant and then they request an opposing brief from the appellee and the appeal is placed on the Justices’ “discuss list.”
None of the 13 Obama eligibility lawsuits has ever reached the “discuss list.”
Thanks for the ping, Bulldog!
STE=Q
Ping!
STE=Q
Check out article, then ignore SP by reading comments bottom to top. He contributes nothing of value.
Thanks, STE=Q.
CHAPTER XIX
Of our Native Country, and several Things that relate to it.
The citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages.
The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.
As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.
The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it.
The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent.
I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.
But then there’s that darn 14th Amendment (with two little words: “All Persons,”
Rep. John Bingham of Ohio — considered the “father of the Fourteenth Amendment” — in the House on March 9, 1866:
“I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parentS NOT OWING ALLEGIANCE to any FOREIGN SOVEREIGNTY is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen...”
(emphases mine)
Did not Obama’s putative FATHER owe ALLEGIANCE to a FOREIGN SOVEREIGNTY at his(Obama’s)birth?
STE=Q
Taught at William and Mary, no less. Every day there is more proof that Vattell is the foundation of America.
Some time ago rxsid located documents Vattel was being taught at William and Mary but we did not know it was related to national law.
Our resident Obots and the Obama media want us to believe Vattel was an obscure Swiss citizen who wrote a book that went from the printer to the dustbin.
If one takes a few moments to research the threads on this subject..they will find..”the Founders could not read French..how could they understand the 1758 Edition “Droit des Gens.” “Vattel is Swiss law.” “Vattel is obscure.”
But then there’s this:
Rep. John Bingham of Ohio — considered the “father of the Fourteenth Amendment” — in the House on March 9, 1866:
“I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parentS NOT OWING ALLEGIANCE to any FOREIGN SOVEREIGNTY is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen...”
(emphases mine)
Did not Obama’s putative FATHER owe ALLEGIANCE to a FOREIGN SOVEREIGNTY at his(Obama’s)birth?
STE=Q
No higher court has reversed Ankeny and the Indiana Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal.
The Supreme Court of the United States has now had 13 opportunities to accept an appeal of an Obama eligibility lawsuit ruled on by a lower court. The Supreme Court has denied hearings to all 13 appeals.
Some time ago rxsid located documents Vattel was being taught at William and Mary but we did not know it was related to national law.
Our resident Obots and the Obama media want us to believe Vattel was an obscure Swiss citizen who wrote a book that went from the printer to the dustbin.
If one takes a few moments to research the threads on this subject..they will find..”the Founders could not read French..how could they understand the 1758 Edition “Droit des Gens.” “Vattel is Swiss law.” “Vattel is obscure.”
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.