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:
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.
Some guy named Ben Franklin did a favorable book review on Amazon and gave it 5 stars. What more do you want?
/s
I've already given the evidence from Founders, early American legal treatise and Judicial Office holders to 'prove' Vattel was used as THE basis for the treaty known as the Constitution. I will not do so again.
The evidence has proven the northern states [and later the federal government] repeatedly violated the provisions of Article V, and consequently violated both the Constitutional supremacy clause and the Law of Nature and Nations.
The South weren't the ones 'violating' the Laws, they were trying to uphold them.
-----
I also note that you again demand evidence while providing none. You obfuscate the question, fail to acknowledge when a point has been made and change the direction of the discussion instead of discussing the evidence itself.
Since that was my THIRD request for hard evidence to the contrary, and that's the THIRD time your reply was "Blah, blah.... you're wrong", you needn't waste your time in responding, as I will no longer be responding to you.