Replies

You have quoted from the "Law of Nations" regarding treaties, but that "Law," especially in 1788, was quite limited in scope, covering a relatively small number of subjects.

Vattel's Law of Nations [first English Edition] was printed in 1758.

I've showed 3rd party evidence where the Founders were using it in the Senate with the Franklin letter of 1775.

If you have evidence to the contrary, please provide it.

----

From your link-No attacks on foreign nations, their citizens, or shipping, without either a declaration of war or letters of marque and reprisal.

Once the dissolution of the Compact was acknowledged by the Ordinances of Secession, the Confederate States WERE a 'foreign country' according to the Law of Nations.

So I ask AGAIN - Where is the Constitutionally REQUIRED Declaration of War?

-----

So far as I can tell, the Law of Nations says nothing about "compacts", "unions" or the formation of constitutionally limited republican governments.

You don't look very hard.

§ 10. Of states forming a federal republic.
Finally, several sovereign and independent states may unite themselves together by a perpetual confederacy, without ceasing to be, each individually, a perfect state. They will together constitute a federal republic: their joint deliberations will not impair the sovereignty of each member, though they may, in certain respects, put some restraint on the exercise of it, in virtue of voluntary engagements. A person does not cease to be free and independent, when he is obliged to fulfil engagements which he has voluntarily contracted.
Book I Chap. I, Law of Nature and Nations by Vattel

BTW - I've also shown where Tucker said it WAS a treaty.

If you have evidence to the contrary, please provide it.

-----

And therefore it is impossible for the alleged "Law of Nations" to supercede our Founders Original Intent for their new Constitution.

Why? Because you say so?

Again, your rebuttal consists of nothing more than your opinion.

Sorry, I've been pulled away, let's see, where were we?

MamaTexan post #155 referring to Emerich de Vattel's book, Law of Nations: "I've showed 3rd party evidence where the Founders were using it in the Senate with the Franklin letter of 1775.
If you have evidence to the contrary, please provide it."

There is no disputing that some Founders referenced the Law of Nations in 1775.
The issue is whether in 1787 those who wrote and ratified the new Constitution considered the Law of Nations as superior to and having authority over their Constitution?

If you have such evidence, please provide it.

MamaTexan: "Once the dissolution of the Compact was acknowledged by the Ordinances of Secession, the Confederate States WERE a 'foreign country' according to the Law of Nations.
So I ask AGAIN - Where is the Constitutionally REQUIRED Declaration of War?"

Please provide evidence that any Founder ever granted the Law of Nations authority over the US Constitution.

The US Constitution does not specify when a declaration of war is required, and our Founders themselves never used a Congressional Declaration of War in cases of insurrection, rebellion or "domestic violence".
Indeed, they fought an undeclared "quazi-war" against France, clearly demonstrating that a formal declaration of war is not necessary for every conflict.

MamaTexan referring to the Law of Nations definition of a Federal Republic: "You don't look very hard.
§ 10. Of states forming a federal republic."

Close but no "cigar".
First of all, again: the alleged Law of Nations (which is not a law, it's a book) has no authority over the US Constitution.

Second, if you wish to throw the Law of Nations at me, just beware, it's a two edged sword:

"§ 16. A nation is under an obligation to preserve itself...
"§ 17. And to preserve its members...
"§ 18. A nation has a right to every thing necessary for its preservation...
"§ 19. It ought to avoid every thing that might occasion its destruction...
"§ 20. Of its right to every thing that may promote this end...
#30 "To attack the constitution of the state and to violate its laws, is a capital crime against society; and if those guilty of it are invested with authority, they add to this crime a perfidious abuse of the power with which they are intrusted.
The nation ought constantly to repress them with its utmost vigour and vigilance, as the importance of the case requires..."

And third, just as with the Founders' Original Intent in the US Constitution regarding "withdrawal" or "disunion", none of the conditions laid out by Emerich de Vattel's Law of Nations were satisfied in November 1860, when Deep South slave-holders first began to declare secession from the United States, and simultaneously to commit many acts of insurrection, rebellion and "domestic violence" before formally declaring war on the United States.

MamaTexan denying Vittel's Law of Nations' lack of authority over the US Constitution: "Why? Because you say so?
Again, your rebuttal consists of nothing more than your opinion."

Please provide evidence showing where anyone ever considered that Emerich de Vattel's book the Law of Nations has authority over or supercedes the US Constitution.