THE law of nations is a system of rules, deducible by natural reason, and established by universal consent among the civilized inhabitants of the world; in order to decide all disputes, to regulate all ceremonies and civilities, and to insure the observance frequently occur between two or more independent states, and the individuals belonging to each. IN arbitrary states this law, wherever it contradicts or is not provided for by the municipal law of the country, is enforced by the royal power : but since in England no royal power can introduce a new law, or suspend the execution of the old, therefore the law of nations (wherever any question arises which is properly the object of its jurisdiction) is here adopted in its full extent by the common law, and is held to be a part of the law of the land.
Back to claiming "law of nations" always refers to Vattel, are you? Newsflash - "law of nations" is a body of law. You keep trying to say that Vattel = common law, but it doesn't.
You need to re-read what I wrote. I was talking about the original ACT and how it was expanded beyond its original intentions through Calvin's Case. You're response completely misses that point.
My response points up some of your errors, which you don't want to acknowledge. I guess to you, that's "missing the point."
No, actually I never said nor implied this. Vattel is simply recognized by the SCOTUS as one of the best writers on the subject. I was actually talking about the law of nations being a set of universal principles and used the Blackstone quote to support that comment. No surprise that you try to come up with a nonsense deflection.
You keep trying to say that Vattel = common law, but it doesn't.
Are you really this dense?? The Blackstone quote says it for me: "the law of nations ... is here adopted in its full extent by the common law ..." This shows that English common law was based in large part on the law of nations, although it obviously goes well beyond the law of nations in several aspects, but the central point that I made is very clear and fully supported.
My response points up some of your errors, which you don't want to acknowledge. I guess to you, that's "missing the point."
No, it's called being honest. You should try it. You've constructed strawmen and mischaracterizations of my posts ... intentional distortions and/or complete fabrications. The errors are all yours.