That doesn’t matter one bit - a non sequitur. In the 18th Century and in the 21st Century Vattel’s work about natural law transcends time all the way up to the 21st Century. This book was publish in 2005.
And as you can see, when this nation was formed, de Vattel book had a predominant influence on our Founders.
So Vatell has actually been mentioned in an Obama eligibility lawsuit.
This is one of the many parts of the Ankeny ruling that makes the Indiana Appeals Court look really, really stupid. For example, the 'various citations to nineteenth century congressional debate' were citations to show the intent of the authors of the 14th amendment. The Hoosier Hillbilly court tries to pass it off as insignificant. To pass off Vattel as incidental is complete and utter stupidity, seeing as how often Vattel has been cited by the SCOTUS, including two example Rogers provided earlier in this thread, not to mention that two SCOTUS decision use Vattel's definition of NBC nearly word for word.
Full Text of Case
U.S. Supreme Court
Selective Draft Law Cases, 245 U.S. 366 (1918)
Selective Draft Law Cases
Nos. 663, 664, 665, 666, 681, 769
Argued December 13, 14, 1917
Decided January 7, 1918*
245 U.S. 366
That power, by the very terms of the Constitution being delegated, is supreme. Article VI. In truth, the contention simply assails the wisdom of the framers of the Constitution in conferring authority on Congress, and in not retaining it as it was under the Confederation in the several States. Further, it is said, the right to provide is not denied by calling for volunteer enlistments, but it does not and
Page 245 U. S. 378
cannot include the power to exact enforced military duty by the citizen. This however but challenges the existence of all power, for a governmental power which has no sanction to it and which therefore can only be exercised provided the citizen consents to its exertion is in no substantial sense a power. It is argued, however, that, although this is abstractly true, it is not concretely so, because, as compelled military service is repugnant to a free government and in conflict with all the great guarantees of the Constitution as to individual liberty, it must be assumed that the authority to raise armies was intended to be limited to the right to call an army into existence counting alone upon the willingness of the citizen to do his duty in time of public need, that is, in time of war. But the premise of this proposition is so devoid of foundation that it leaves not even a shadow of ground upon which to base the conclusion. Let us see if this is not at once demonstrable. It may not be doubted that the very conception of a just government and its duty to the citizen includes the reciprocal obligation of the citizen to render military service in case of need, and the right to compel it. Vattel, Law of Nations, Book III, c. 1 & 2. To do more than state the proposition is absolutely unnecessary in view of the practical illustration afforded by the almost universal legislation to that effect now in force. [Footnote 1] In England, it is certain that, before the
Page 245 U. S. 379
Norman Conquest, the duty of the great militant body of the citizens was recognized and enforceable.