Dr. Conspiracy October 30, 2010 at 6:35 pm Dr. Conspiracy(Quote) #
DancingRabbit: There are so many Founders quoting Vattel during the Convention I cannot list them all
Given that de Vattel’s name is not mentioned once in the records of the Constitutional convention, I think this pretty much ends the toleration of your lies on this web site.
You’re banned.”
The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 [Farrand’s Records, Volume 3]
GENERAL INDEX
“Vattel, cited, I, 437, 438, (440, 442).”
http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field%28DOCID+@lit%28fr003452%29%29
Proof the web site ObamaConspiracy is attempting to hide the truth regarding Vattel and protecting an illegal Obama
Question...have you seen that Vattel is discussed in GB Parliament in the 1700’s?
The parliamentary register; or, History of the proceedings and debates of ... By Great Britain. Parliament
Jay to the President of congress Nov 24, 1785
also contains this SCOTUS opinion from Cheif Justice Jay:
It 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.
Vattel Sec-214 Naturalization
A nation, or the sovereign who represents it, may grant to a foreigner the quality of citizen, by admitting him into the body of the political society. This is called naturalization... Finally, there are states, as, for instance, England, where the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalizes the children of a foreigner.
“Vattel, cited, I, 437, 438, (440, 442).”
So we have Vattel cited in Vol 1 of Farrand's Records and on those pages they are talking about whom are the members of the society & in what respect are the states sovereign as to those individuals whom reside in those states in regards to the federal government.
Then in Vol 3 of Farrand's Records they have entered for the record, “John Jay to George Washington(3)” permit me to hint whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a strong check...that the commander in chief of the american army shall not be given, nor devolve on, any but a natural born citizen. (3)”Documentary History of the Constitution