Sunday, January 10, 2010

THE LAW OF NATIONS

What does it say, and what influence did it have on our Founding Fathers in the drafting of
The Constitution of the United States of America?

http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/vattel/index.html
http://www.constitution.org/constit_.htm
http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/blackstone/


Arguments have been made that the Common Laws of England influenced the drafting of our constitution and was accepted therein by the Founding Fathers.

My contentions, along with many other Constitutionalists and legal scholars, contend this assumption is not true.

In those arguments one needs to research and read the Law of Nations, The Common Law of England (circa 1765) and the Articles of the United States Constitution, and draw comparisons thereto.

Above are the research sites for all.

Please recognize the following are my belief, based on my study of Our Constitutional Republic, a nation of laws, which our Founding Fathers gave us, and the various States of the new republic ratified in 1776.

First, in my opinion, the influences seen in the articles of our constitution more mirror Vattel’s Law of Nations than it could ever be conceived in the Common Law of England. It does not take much reading of our constitution and the reading of the Law of Nations to see the influence it had in the drafting of our constitution.

When you look at Article I of our Constitution and then look at corresponding Chapter 3, 6, and others, of Book 1 of The Law of Nations; you can readily see, not in every word, but in the influence Vattel had on the drafting of our constitution.

As you read further, in each, you will see the differences between The Common Law of England and the Law of Nations, and how each influenced our constitution, or had no influence it. In Vattel’s writings on constitutional republics you find the word citizen(s) use to describe you and me in country, while the English Common Law refers to subjects in its reference to their countrymen.

In that regard, our revolution was fought because our fore fathers wanted to be free from the King’s tyranny, and absolute rule to make a better life for them and the people of this country. We fought that revolution to be freemen.

In that regard, to be freemen, our founding fathers were not about to setup a Monarchy that limited government, and put control in one persons hands, since they had lived that life both in England, and in the Colonies, and found it restricting, over taxing, and invasion of one’s rights as freemen. Since this was the case why in “God’s” green earth would the Founding Fathers set about saddling themselves, and the new nation, with the same? And, so….

they set up a constitutional republic, with representative government, where there are elective branches of government, and those elected were subject to re-election every few years at the will of the people.

In our Constitutional Republic, the President of the new United States of America could only serve two 4 year terms, and then step down; in this manner the new nation could not come under the control of one person, or group of individuals, and then be come something other than a Constitutional Republic, a nation of laws.

You will also find the influence of Vattel, where the means to change the constitution very much came from the Law of Nations, where it references the need from time to time to amend or change the Constitutional Republic, but not at the whims of a few, and thereby set out the process to accomplish that means. In that means it required the people of the new nation to ratify those changes before they become law, through the amendment process. The amendment process was intended to be burdensome and no an easy process for that very reason. In The Common Law of England you find no such mechanism by which this could be accomplished because that nation is ruled by one person, with no representative councils of meaning.

Today, as in the past, our Constitution is constantly under attack from those who want something other than what our constitution provides us; those who see the fruits of their labors and mind sets differently want this nation to be socialistic, marxist, or communist, or some variation thereof, in how we are governed, because they want control with no oversight from We the People, because in their rationale we are to stupid to know what is best for us and our nation. Our Constitution is constantly under attack from within.

There is one quote that resonates with me, and it comes from our recent President Ronal Reagan:

“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it on to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children what it was once like in the United States when men were free. ”


in that quote we can see the warning President Ronald Reagan tried to convey to all of us; just because we live in this country, are born of American citizens, are American citizens, does not guarantee our nation will survive by blood rights. It takes our attention to what is going on around us, and in the halls of our representative national and state governments, and to take responsibility thereto.

We as a nation have not done a very good job of paying attention in the past, and all one has to do is look to the current sitting congress to see how much we have not paid attention.

We are now ruled, not by representative government, but by a bunch of socialist/liberals we have allowed to sit in our representative seats of government; mainly by our lack to due diligence at the ballot box each election cycle.

This is changing since our last election (2008), people are waking up (myself included) and realizing that they cannot trust our neighbor to vote our consciences at the ballot box, and thereby forgo making the trip to the voting booth to make our wishes known during the elections.

We all need to get up off our chairs, and couches, and make the trip to the ballot box every two years to make sure on Constitutional Republic survives in its present form; if we all do that then those who would seek to destroy of way of government will not succeed in their quest. The answer is in all of us!

One other quote I will share with you is from Samuel Adams (no not the beer maker):

“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”.


Next blog article we will revisit, Article II and Obams’s eligibility, study well.

18 comments:

  1. Re: "our founding fathers were not about to setup a Monarchy that limited government.."

    True. But Vattel would not have gone along with this. Vattel was a monarchist. He never recommends electing leaders. He allows leaders, which to him were always kings and emperors, to be citizens of foreign countries.

    The words "Natural Born Citizen" do not appear in a translation of Vattel until 10 years after the writing of the Constitution. The words "Natural Born" are frequently used in the common law and in the colonial laws before the writing of the Constitution.

    That is why such prominent conservative Senators who are also lawyers as Orren Hatch and Lindsay Graham say that a Natural Born Citizen is simply one who was born in the USA:

    Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), said:

    “Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.” (December 11, 2008 letter to constituent)

    Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), said:

    “What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)

    ReplyDelete
  2. To smrstrauss---You forget that, the founding fathers reserved the definition of Natural Born Citizen to our Constitution. The sitting members of do not have the right to make that decision. Congress by consent of our constitution can determine how one becomes a citizen after migration to the US. Congress can also make citizens of those born beyond our shore of US parent(s) but cannot bestow Natural Born Citizen thereon. Which takes us back to the John McCain issue which the Senate bestowed Natural Born Citizen status on which vilolates our constitution. In Obama's case he is an illegal alien, a citizen at best if he can prove birth in the United States which he has failed to do to date and continues to avoid.

    If Congress wishes to change or define the meaning of Natural Born Citizen they can do that only through amending our constitution. As you are well aware of that process is laborious and time consuming, as the founding fathers intended it to be; thereby taking away the whims of the sitting members of congress.

    There have been a few attempts to change the meaning over the years, none of which have ever made out of congress. Sorry you sitll have it wrong. But there is still hope for you and your brothers.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Re: “You forget that, the founding fathers reserved the definition of Natural Born Citizen to our Constitution. “

    Precisely, and the original meaning of Natural Born was “born in the country,” which was recognized in the Kim Wong Ark Supreme Court case which repeatedly said that EVERY child born in the country is Natural Born.

    Re: ‘The sitting members of do not have the right to make that decision.”

    Of course not. However, those were two constitutional experts giving their opinions, which turns out to be the overwhelming consensus of the constitutional experts.

    Yale Law Review, for example, said: “It is well settled that “native-born” citizens, those born in the United States, qualify as natural born.”

    Black’s Law Dictionary wrote: ““Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” — Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition

    The Wall Street Journal wrote: “Some birthers imagine that there is a difference between being a “citizen by birth” or a “native citizen” on the one hand and a “natural born” citizen on the other. “Eccentric” is too kind a word for this notion, which is either daft or dishonest. All three terms are identical in meaning.”

    Also, all 365 Electoral Votes that Obama won on Nov 4, 2008 went to him despite a campaign by birthers to contact them and try to convince him that he was not a Natural Born Citizen.

    Re: The US. Congress can also make citizens of those born beyond our shore of US parent(s) but cannot bestow Natural Born Citizen thereon. “

    That is a matter of opinion. You say no. I say Yes. The very first US Naturalization/citizenship law added birth abroad to two US citizens as an additional category to the original definition of Natural Born, which was simply “born in the country.” In the original definition, Natural Born was a synonym for native born, which was not a popular expression at the time.

    Re: ‘Which takes us back to the John McCain issue which the Senate bestowed Natural Born Citizen status on which vilolates our constitution.”

    The action of the Senate is not even a law. It has no effect whatsoever. If McCain is a Natural Born citizen, it would be on the basis of previous legislation, presumably still in effect (the first naturalization law was repealed) that says that a child born to two citizens abroad is Natural Born. This, however, does not change the original meaning of Natural Born, which was simply “born in the country.”

    Re: ‘In Obama's case he is an illegal alien, a citizen at best if he can prove birth in the United States which he has failed to do to date and continues to avoid.”

    Obama has proved that he was born in Hawaii by showing the official birth certificate of Hawaii. The Certification of Live Birth is now the official birth certificate of Hawaii, and it is the only birth certificate that Hawaii now issues. (http://www.starbulletin.com/columnists/kokualine/20090606_kokua_line.html). That being the case, it is the only one that Obama can show because he lost the copy of the original that his family was sent when he was born. However, the Certification is a legal document, accepted by all the departments in Hawaii as proof of birth in Hawaii (Yes, including DHHL. I checked), and it is accepted by the US State Department and the branches of the US military as proof of birth in the USA.

    The officials in Hawaii, members of a Republican governor’s administration, have twice confirmed the facts on the official birth certificate that he was born in Hawaii in 1961 appear on the documents in the files.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "Precisely, and the original meaning of Natural Born was “born in the country,” which was recognized in the Kim Wong Ark Supreme Court case which repeatedly said that EVERY child born in the country is Natural Born."

    What bother to leave out is two citizen parents; the very reason the exemption was granted the first several presidents because they could not meet that challagen in the early history of our nation. Thereafter two citizen parents were and are required to bestow Natural Born Citizen status on their childern. Sorry you only provided a hafl truth.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "Obama has proved that he was born in Hawaii by showing the official birth certificate of Hawaii. The Certification of Live Birth is now the official birth certificate of Hawaii, and it is the only birth certificate that Hawaii now issues. (http://www.starbulletin.com/columnists/kokualine/20090606_kokua_line.html). That being the case, it is the only one that Obama can show because he lost the copy of the original that his family was sent when he was born. However, the Certification is a legal document, accepted by all the departments in Hawaii as proof of birth in Hawaii (Yes, including DHHL. I checked), and it is accepted by the US State Department and the branches of the US military as proof of birth in the USA."

    Again not true, the COB produced by Obama's minions is not a Certified Birth Certificate. The COB produced for him would not and is not accepted in Hawaii for employment in the State of Hawaii government; and so stated by Hawaii officicals. Sorry again not true.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Re: 'The COB ...is not accepted in Hawaii for employment in the State."

    Of course it is. It is the official birth certificate of Hawaii and it is the only birth certificate that Hawaii currently issues.

    ReplyDelete
  7. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Why did you remove my last post? There's no swearing in it. Do you just remove posts that you disagree with?

    Constitutional scholars agree overwhelmingly that the source of the term Natural Born Citizen is not from Vattel, a Swiss philosopher and monarchist who did not believe in elections, but from the common law, which used the term Natural Born for a couple of centuries and it always referred to citizenship due to birth in the country. And, in dozens of articles and books written at the time of the Constitution, the framers and other leaders of the day always used Natural Born as a way of saying "born in the country" and never as a way of saying "born in the country to two citizen parents."

    ReplyDelete
  9. I did by accident, I was removing my answer to that posting and hit the wrong trash can; sorry it was unintentional. That said I can now post a short cut to the newly filed Appelate Breif in the 3rd Circut Court in Piladelphia. This read is excellent in merits and on point. When you have read what the founding fathers and the courts, including SCOTUS, have said with regard to NBC you should if your mind is not closed come away with a differenct view of your previous position. If after reading this brief you have not changed your mind then you are securly in Obama's bed; and for that I feel for you. You are by all appearances an intellegent person, and very well read; but what have you been reading that slants your views away from our constitution?

    Cut and paste this address and enjoy the 115 page read.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/25461132/Kerchner-v-Obama-Appeal-Appellant-s-Opening-Brief-FILED-2010-01-19

    I am sure you will enjoy this read.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Re: "what have you been reading that slants your views away from our constitution?"

    I love the Constitution and the Natural Born Citizen clause.

    The clause neither says nor means that a Natural Born Citizen has to have two US parents. It says that to be eligible the president must be a Natural Born Citizen, and that at the time meant "born in the country."

    This is recognized by the OVERWHELMING number of experts. For example, Yale Law Review wrote:

    "It is well settled that “native-born” citizens, those born in the United States, qualify as natural born."

    I can hear you thinking that the framers of the Constitution were concerned about foreign influence. Well, sure, but they obviously thought that making the president be born in the USA was the protection that they wanted. That is what they wrote because Natural Born at the time meant "born in the country."

    Why did they believe that birth in the country was protection against foreign inflence? Because they believed that birth in the country was the criterion of allegiance. The one and only criterion of allegiance.

    ReplyDelete
  11. James Madison said in a speech to the House of Representatives in 1789: "It is an established maxim, that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general, place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States."

    The sole criterion of allegiance that he mentions is place. He is saying that other countries, NOT the USA, use as their criterion parentage. But Madison says that that is not the US criterion, and that our criterion (place) is the most certain criterion.

    Blackstone says that allegiance stems from the place of birth, and that a person can have ONLY one allegiance, to that country.

    This fits in with what I have written before, that in dozens of quotations from the framers and other American leaders at the time I was unable to find a single use of Natural Born to mean "two US parents" or "two US parents plus birth in the country." They used Natural Born dozens many times, and it always meant "born in the country."

    Vattel had a different view, but Vattel was Swiss and a monarchist, and he never said that the leader of a country should be a citizen, much less a two-parent citizen.

    The original meaning of Natural Born, as I said, is overwhelmingly held by scholars to mean "born in the country."

    In the brief that you mention, I have seen the claim that the Supreme Court has ruled differently. But this is deliberately trying to mislead. In fact, in the Wong Kim Ark case, the court ruled six to two that EVERY child born in the country is Natural Born.

    That does not make all such children Natural Born Citizens. If the child has lost his US citizenship, he is not a Natural Born Citizen--of course. And if, as with Indians at one time, the law held that they were not citizens, they also were not Natural Born Citizens.

    But if they are both Natural Born and citizens, they are Natural Born Citizens.

    I can understand why some people may believe that having a rule that both parents must be citizens and the child be born in the country offers us more protection against foreign influence than the child merely being born in the country.

    But that I think is like having to wear both suspenders and a belt, meaning that it is more security than we need. It is certainly more security than Madison thought that we needed, when he said that place was THE criterion.

    Remember that after the election birthers tried to get the 365 Electors that Obama had won in the general election to change their votes because of the allegation that Obama was not a Natural Born citizen, and NOT ONE OF THEM changed a vote. Remember that when Congress confirmed the president birthers again tried to get some of them to vote against Obama, and the vote was unanimous to confirm Obama.

    These, and the election of Nov. 4, 2008 are parts of the Constitution that we should respect. And besides, the original meaning of Natural Born was "born in the country."

    ReplyDelete
  12. Your comment "Re: "what have you been reading that slants your views away from our constitution?"

    This is absolutely not true.

    It validates our Constitution and the Founding Fathers intent therein. You apparently did not complete your reading assignment before you returned; had you done so and been open mined enough to grasp what the merits, points and cites said you would have come away with a different view than your progressive view that has been pervasive in your comments. Our constitution in not a living document to the changed at will; that is why the Founders made it difficult to amend; they knew what would happen if they did not restrict the amendment process. Complete your reading assignment and then respond with countering merits, points and supporting cites you feel blows holes in the merits and points presented in this breif.

    Don't use the Washington Times, and other media, etal to make your points, merits, and cites becasue what they have to say has not judicial bearing on this matter. Just as congress has no constitutional authority to determine how a Natual Born Citizen is created; they only have the authority to determine how a US Citizen is created; read our contitution and the amendments thereto. Have a good day and comeback again.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Re: "in not a living document to the changed at will; that is why the Founders made it difficult to amend; they knew what would happen if they did not restrict the amendment process."

    I agree that it is not a living document. That is why I pointed out that the original meaning of Natural Born was the same thing as Native Born is today. Native Born was not a popular expression at the time. It was very rarely used. Natural Born was used all the time, and it always was used to mean "born in the country."

    This is not a progressive view. It is the historical view. And it is shared by the overwhelming majority of constitutional scholars, including such prominent conservative Senators who are also lawyers as Orren Hatch and Lindsay Graham say that a Natural Born Citizen is simply one who was born in the USA:

    Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), said:

    “Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.” (December 11, 2008 letter to constituent)

    Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), said:

    “What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)

    They are not saying that the Constitution has changed or that it is a "living document." They are saying that Natural Born always meant "born in the country."

    I have read the case that you cite. It is wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Watch out for the Progressives. Senators Lindsay Gramham and Orin Hatch, and the others are not constitutionally eligible to make that determination; that is reserved to our constitution. If they want to make that deterination they need to go to the amendment process; as I have said every effort to change this meaning, or to clarify it, has failed in committee, none have ever reached the floor.

    That should tell you something about what our founding father felt was necessary to prevent willy-nilly changing of the contitution on a whim; they knew!

    ReplyDelete
  15. Re: "Senators Lindsay Gramham and Orin Hatch, and the others are not constitutionally eligible to make that determination."

    Of course not. However, they are smart conservative lawyers, and they are telling you what the OVERWHELMING majority of lawyers and constitutional experts say, that the original meaning of Natural Born was simply "born in the country." That is exactly what our founding fathers felt, that someone who was born in the country was and is eligible to be president.

    Remember that after the election birthers tried to get the 365 Electors that Obama had won in the general election to change their votes because of the allegation that Obama was not a Natural Born citizen, and NOT ONE OF THEM changed a vote. Remember that when Congress confirmed the president birthers again tried to get some of them to vote against Obama, and the vote was unanimous to confirm Obama.

    Why did not one of the electors change her or his vote or one of the members of Congress vote against Obama? Because not one of them thought that Obama was not a Natural Born Citizen.

    What is the chances of getting five votes on the Supreme Court that hold that to be president you have to have two US parents? NO chance. The meaning of Natural Born at the time of the writing of the Constitution was simply "born in the country."

    For example: "“Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it. The first, by the birth-right, became entitled to all the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to none, but such as were held out and given by the laws of the respective states prior to their emigration."

    This is from : St. George Tucker, View of the Constitution of the United States with Selected Writings, published in 1803.

    The meaning of the paragraph is that because there was no naturalization laws at the time, the only kinds of residents of the state were Natural Born Citizens, those that had been born there, and aliens, who had not been born there. Thus the meaning of Natural Born could only have been "born in the state."

    And, there is a long set of quotations from Adams, Franklin and Jay in which they use Natural Born Citizen as the equivalent of Natural Born Subject, and a Natural Born Subject was simply someone who was born in the country.

    As I said, the view that all citizens at birth are Natural Born Citizens is OVERWHELMING. That is why Black's Law Dictionary wrote:

    “Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” — Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition.


    And why Yale Law Review wrote: ": It is well settled that “native-born” citizens, those born in the United States, qualify as natural born. "

    And why the Wall Street Journal wrote: "Some birthers imagine that there is a difference between being a “citizen by birth” or a “native citizen” on the one hand and a “natural born” citizen on the other. “Eccentric” is too kind a word for this notion, which is either daft or dishonest. All three terms are identical in meaning."

    ReplyDelete
  16. You simply have it wrong. Our Founding Fathers use the Law of Nations to ensure our Constitutional Republic was not a democracy; in fact if you read the entire constitution, as written, you find no mention of democracy anywhere in the document. The progressives over the years have tried to change our Constitutional Republic into a democracy and although they have convinced some in our country we are a democracy, we are not and are still a Republican form of government and a nation of laws. I believe you are a progressive and I will not be able to change that; however, you will need to come to grips with the Constitutional Conservatives, Constitutional Independents, the Birthers, and finally the Tea Party Movement. I find the liberal socialists and progressives getting extremely nervous over the movement of the moderate and conservatives in the country; we really intend to take back the halls of congress and the white house. I have read a couple of articles recently, from different sources, both within the country and outside our country that are predicting Obama will not serve out his first four years; they believe the Denocrats will turn on him and force him out of office; the only way I see that happening is over his lack of eligibiliy. Points to ponder!

    ReplyDelete
  17. This is SMRSTAUSSS. I have having trouble logging in.

    The consensus of opinion that a Natural Born Citizen is simply someone who was not naturalized is overwhelming. That is why all 375 Electoral Votes that Obama won in the general election went for him without a single elector changing a vote. That is why the Congress certified the election unanimously.

    That is why Black's Law Review says that a Natural Born Citizen includes all children born in the country's jurisdiction (meaning that the children of foreign diplomats are not included). And that is why Senators Hatch and Graham say that every child born in the country is a Natural Born Citizen. These men are not progressives; they are simply giving their Constitutional opinion about the meaning of Natural Born Citizen.

    ReplyDelete