Tweet
Conclusion: U.S. Supreme Court Recognized Vattel’s Treatise Was Of Critical Influence On Founders
Birther Report
5/15/2015
Excerpts:
Of Occam’s Razor and Natural Born Citizens, Part II (Conclusion)
“OF SEMINAL IMPORTANCE TO THE LEADERS OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION”
by Joseph DeMaio, ©2015
May 14, 2015) — [Editor's Note: The following is the conclusion to the discussion begun in Part 1 of this series.]
PARLEZ-VOUS ANGLAIS?
One of the more novel yet disingenuous contrivances used in the 2011 CRS Report in the attempt to discredit and marginalize § 212 of de Vattel’s tome takes the form of the contention that, when the Constitution was drafted, no English translation of the French term used by de Vattel “Les naturels ou indigenes” was available to the Founders. See 2011 CRS Report at 22, fn. 100. The Report then notes that, since an English translation of those words as meaning “natural born citizens” did not come until “after” (emphasis by CRS) the adoption of the Constitution, it concludes (erroneously) that de Vattel’s words in § 212 “could not possibly have influenced the framing of the Constitution in 1797.” Id., fn. 101. Really?
To begin with, the CRS erroneously presumes that none of the delegates at the convention understood French. Au contraire: not only did many of the delegates speak and write French as well as English – the educational system in 1787 being a bit more worldly than it is today – de Vattel’s work, “The Law of Nations,” in French, was well-known to the delegates to the Constitutional Convention and was frequently resorted to during their debates.
In point of fact, and as noted here, the U.S. Supreme Court has already recognized that de Vattel’s treatise was of critical influence on the Founders.
As recently as 1978, in U.S. Steel v. Multistate Tax Commission, 434 U.S. 452, 462, n. 12, the Court noted that “the international jurist most widely cited in the first 50 years after the Revolution [i.e., between 1776 and 1826] was Emmerich de Vattel. 1 J. Kent, Commentaries on American Law 18 (1826). In 1775, Benjamin Franklin acknowledged receipt of three copies of a new edition, in French, of [de] Vattel’s Law of Nations and remarked that the book ‘has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress now sitting . . . .’ 2 F. Wharton, United States Revolutionary Diplomatic Correspondence 64 (1889), cited in Weinfeld, supra, at 458.” (Emphasis added).
Contrary to the flimsy myth peddled by the 2011 CRS Report that none of the Founders could possibly have been influenced by de Vattel’s tome because of language barriers, it is clear that the treatise, including § 212 thereof, was well-known to the Founders. In fact, it has been authoritatively noted that “Emmerich de Vattel was by far the most influential of the continental publicists [authorities relied upon by the Founders based on their treatises which claimed to state what the law was as deduced from principles of natural law].” (Emphasis added) See Robert J. Reinstein, Executive Power and the Law of Nations in the Washington Administration, 46 U. Rich. L. Rev. 373, 404 (2012).
Professor Reinstein notes: “The Law of Nations was of seminal importance to the leaders of the American Revolution because it animated pre-revolutionary thought that is at the core of the Declaration of Independence” (emphasis added), citing David Armitage, “The Declaration of Independence: A Global History, 38-44 (2007) for the proposition that “[n]o other treatise on international law came close to being as widely read or as heavily relied upon by the Revolution’s leaders.” Id. (Emphasis added).
Professor Reinstein continues, (id.): “The impact of his treatise [The Law of Nations] in Europe and the United States was extraordinary: ‘[de] Vattel’s treatise on the law of nations was quoted by judicial tribunals, in speeches before legislative assemblies, and in decrees and correspondence of executive officials. It was the manual of the student, the reference work of the statesman, and the text from which the political philosopher drew inspiration…,’” (emphasis added), quoting Charles G. Fenwick, “The Authority of Vattel,” 7 Am. Pol. Sci. Rev. 395 (1913).
Professor Reinstein then adds, id., “[Alexander] Hamilton and [Thomas] Jefferson each considered [de] Vattel as authoritative and inspirational. According to Forrest McDonald [an American author and historian recognized as one of the foremost authorities on the history of the U.S. Constitution and the early years of the American Republic, [de] Vattel was one of the three philosophers/statesmen who had the greatest effect on Hamilton’s thinking.” (Emphasis added).
And that James Madison, another Founder, was also familiar with and relied upon de Vattel and/or The Law of Nations is confirmed through an examination of various letters he wrote to Thomas Jefferson (May 8, 1793), John Jay (draft letter of October 17, 1780 citing de Vattel for principles relating to innocent passage on the Mississippi River) and James Monroe (November 27, 1784) relating to the arrest and extradition of alien offenders.
Moreover, since Hamilton, along with John Jay and James Madison, were the three “Publius” authors of The Federalist, the potential for them discussing all aspects of the new Constitution – including the principles articulated by de Vattel with regard to who could and who could not be, under natural law, eligible to the presidency as a “natural born citizen” or a “naturel ou indigene” – is not only highly likely, it is a virtually inescapable conclusion.
In fact, the collection of historical documents from the era is replete with examples of correspondence between and among numerous of the Founders and their contemporaries where de Vattel and/or his treatise, The Law of Nations, is cited and discussed (and, in the case of Jefferson, cited and discussed in the same document in both French and English. See, e.g., Thomas Jefferson May 29, 1792 letter to George Hammond.)
Jefferson also cited and discussed de Vattel’s work in letters to James Madison on April 28, 1793 and August 3, 1793 as well as in reports to President George Washington on March 22, 1792 and April 28, 1793.
And in a letter by Thomas Jefferson to John Jay dated November 14, 1788, Jefferson emphasizes with respect to the appointment of counsels to France the importance of appointing only “native citizens” as opposed to “aliens” or “citizens alien-born.” The reasons given by Jefferson for this restriction included, specifically, the fact that they are “more to be relied on in point of fidelity.” (Emphasis added). It is noteworthy that, even under the 2011 CRS Report’s analysis of the language used by de Vattel in § 212, the French terminology was “naturels ou indigenes” and only later translated to “natives or indigenes.” See 2011 CRS Report at 22, fn. 100.
Against this factual backdrop – one ignored, of course, by the result-oriented 2011 CRS Report – it strains, if not shatters, credulity to contend that the principles and ideas articulated by de Vattel, including the rational and logical principles set forth in § 212 of The Law of Nations “… could not possibly have influenced the framing of the Constitution in 1787…” as claimed in the Report. It is impossible, on the one hand, to reconcile the 2011 CRS Report’s assertion that de Vattel’s teachings were irrelevant to the Founders’ intent, debates and deliberations with, on the other hand, the recognition that his work was, as Professor Reinstein notes, “of seminal importance to the leaders of the American Revolution.” (Emphasis added).
Indeed, not only does empirical evidence abound from the historical documents of Jay, Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison and Franklin that de Vattel’s ideas and theses did, in fact, “influence[] the framing of the Constitution…,” any objective analysis of the issue demonstrates that de Vattel’s tome actually guided the Founders in their efforts to design a governing document for their new nation. The principles articulated by de Vattel in § 212 of his treatise must thus be seen as the sine qua non of what their intent was in designing and enacting Art. 2, Sec. 1, Cl. 5 of the Constitution.
WHERE DID JAY GET HIS LANGUAGE?
Moreover, if as the 2011 CRS Report contends (at 42, fn. 101), the only English translations of § 212 available before the adoption of the Constitution translated the French words “Les naturels ou indigenes” as “natives or indigenes,” and that since it was much later (1789, 1833 and 1837) that translations of the Constitution – significantly, from English to French – indulged in the “creative translation” of these words into “natural born citizen” and which purportedly “could not possibly have influenced the framing of the Constitution in 1787…” (id.), then – respectfully – where does the CRS Report identify the source for the specific words John Jay used – “natural born citizen” for his “hint” to George Washington on July 25, 1787?
.................................................. ...
To repeat that which has been frequently stated here in the past: sad. - © 2015, The Post & Email. All rights reserved. Source link. - http://www.thepostemail.com/2015/05/...ii-conclusion/
View the complete Birther Report presentation at:
http://www.birtherreport.com/2015/05...ecognized.html
Birther Report
5/15/2015
Excerpts:
Of Occam’s Razor and Natural Born Citizens, Part II (Conclusion)
“OF SEMINAL IMPORTANCE TO THE LEADERS OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION”
by Joseph DeMaio, ©2015
May 14, 2015) — [Editor's Note: The following is the conclusion to the discussion begun in Part 1 of this series.]
PARLEZ-VOUS ANGLAIS?
One of the more novel yet disingenuous contrivances used in the 2011 CRS Report in the attempt to discredit and marginalize § 212 of de Vattel’s tome takes the form of the contention that, when the Constitution was drafted, no English translation of the French term used by de Vattel “Les naturels ou indigenes” was available to the Founders. See 2011 CRS Report at 22, fn. 100. The Report then notes that, since an English translation of those words as meaning “natural born citizens” did not come until “after” (emphasis by CRS) the adoption of the Constitution, it concludes (erroneously) that de Vattel’s words in § 212 “could not possibly have influenced the framing of the Constitution in 1797.” Id., fn. 101. Really?
To begin with, the CRS erroneously presumes that none of the delegates at the convention understood French. Au contraire: not only did many of the delegates speak and write French as well as English – the educational system in 1787 being a bit more worldly than it is today – de Vattel’s work, “The Law of Nations,” in French, was well-known to the delegates to the Constitutional Convention and was frequently resorted to during their debates.
In point of fact, and as noted here, the U.S. Supreme Court has already recognized that de Vattel’s treatise was of critical influence on the Founders.
As recently as 1978, in U.S. Steel v. Multistate Tax Commission, 434 U.S. 452, 462, n. 12, the Court noted that “the international jurist most widely cited in the first 50 years after the Revolution [i.e., between 1776 and 1826] was Emmerich de Vattel. 1 J. Kent, Commentaries on American Law 18 (1826). In 1775, Benjamin Franklin acknowledged receipt of three copies of a new edition, in French, of [de] Vattel’s Law of Nations and remarked that the book ‘has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress now sitting . . . .’ 2 F. Wharton, United States Revolutionary Diplomatic Correspondence 64 (1889), cited in Weinfeld, supra, at 458.” (Emphasis added).
Contrary to the flimsy myth peddled by the 2011 CRS Report that none of the Founders could possibly have been influenced by de Vattel’s tome because of language barriers, it is clear that the treatise, including § 212 thereof, was well-known to the Founders. In fact, it has been authoritatively noted that “Emmerich de Vattel was by far the most influential of the continental publicists [authorities relied upon by the Founders based on their treatises which claimed to state what the law was as deduced from principles of natural law].” (Emphasis added) See Robert J. Reinstein, Executive Power and the Law of Nations in the Washington Administration, 46 U. Rich. L. Rev. 373, 404 (2012).
Professor Reinstein notes: “The Law of Nations was of seminal importance to the leaders of the American Revolution because it animated pre-revolutionary thought that is at the core of the Declaration of Independence” (emphasis added), citing David Armitage, “The Declaration of Independence: A Global History, 38-44 (2007) for the proposition that “[n]o other treatise on international law came close to being as widely read or as heavily relied upon by the Revolution’s leaders.” Id. (Emphasis added).
Professor Reinstein continues, (id.): “The impact of his treatise [The Law of Nations] in Europe and the United States was extraordinary: ‘[de] Vattel’s treatise on the law of nations was quoted by judicial tribunals, in speeches before legislative assemblies, and in decrees and correspondence of executive officials. It was the manual of the student, the reference work of the statesman, and the text from which the political philosopher drew inspiration…,’” (emphasis added), quoting Charles G. Fenwick, “The Authority of Vattel,” 7 Am. Pol. Sci. Rev. 395 (1913).
Professor Reinstein then adds, id., “[Alexander] Hamilton and [Thomas] Jefferson each considered [de] Vattel as authoritative and inspirational. According to Forrest McDonald [an American author and historian recognized as one of the foremost authorities on the history of the U.S. Constitution and the early years of the American Republic, [de] Vattel was one of the three philosophers/statesmen who had the greatest effect on Hamilton’s thinking.” (Emphasis added).
And that James Madison, another Founder, was also familiar with and relied upon de Vattel and/or The Law of Nations is confirmed through an examination of various letters he wrote to Thomas Jefferson (May 8, 1793), John Jay (draft letter of October 17, 1780 citing de Vattel for principles relating to innocent passage on the Mississippi River) and James Monroe (November 27, 1784) relating to the arrest and extradition of alien offenders.
Moreover, since Hamilton, along with John Jay and James Madison, were the three “Publius” authors of The Federalist, the potential for them discussing all aspects of the new Constitution – including the principles articulated by de Vattel with regard to who could and who could not be, under natural law, eligible to the presidency as a “natural born citizen” or a “naturel ou indigene” – is not only highly likely, it is a virtually inescapable conclusion.
In fact, the collection of historical documents from the era is replete with examples of correspondence between and among numerous of the Founders and their contemporaries where de Vattel and/or his treatise, The Law of Nations, is cited and discussed (and, in the case of Jefferson, cited and discussed in the same document in both French and English. See, e.g., Thomas Jefferson May 29, 1792 letter to George Hammond.)
Jefferson also cited and discussed de Vattel’s work in letters to James Madison on April 28, 1793 and August 3, 1793 as well as in reports to President George Washington on March 22, 1792 and April 28, 1793.
And in a letter by Thomas Jefferson to John Jay dated November 14, 1788, Jefferson emphasizes with respect to the appointment of counsels to France the importance of appointing only “native citizens” as opposed to “aliens” or “citizens alien-born.” The reasons given by Jefferson for this restriction included, specifically, the fact that they are “more to be relied on in point of fidelity.” (Emphasis added). It is noteworthy that, even under the 2011 CRS Report’s analysis of the language used by de Vattel in § 212, the French terminology was “naturels ou indigenes” and only later translated to “natives or indigenes.” See 2011 CRS Report at 22, fn. 100.
Against this factual backdrop – one ignored, of course, by the result-oriented 2011 CRS Report – it strains, if not shatters, credulity to contend that the principles and ideas articulated by de Vattel, including the rational and logical principles set forth in § 212 of The Law of Nations “… could not possibly have influenced the framing of the Constitution in 1787…” as claimed in the Report. It is impossible, on the one hand, to reconcile the 2011 CRS Report’s assertion that de Vattel’s teachings were irrelevant to the Founders’ intent, debates and deliberations with, on the other hand, the recognition that his work was, as Professor Reinstein notes, “of seminal importance to the leaders of the American Revolution.” (Emphasis added).
Indeed, not only does empirical evidence abound from the historical documents of Jay, Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison and Franklin that de Vattel’s ideas and theses did, in fact, “influence[] the framing of the Constitution…,” any objective analysis of the issue demonstrates that de Vattel’s tome actually guided the Founders in their efforts to design a governing document for their new nation. The principles articulated by de Vattel in § 212 of his treatise must thus be seen as the sine qua non of what their intent was in designing and enacting Art. 2, Sec. 1, Cl. 5 of the Constitution.
WHERE DID JAY GET HIS LANGUAGE?
Moreover, if as the 2011 CRS Report contends (at 42, fn. 101), the only English translations of § 212 available before the adoption of the Constitution translated the French words “Les naturels ou indigenes” as “natives or indigenes,” and that since it was much later (1789, 1833 and 1837) that translations of the Constitution – significantly, from English to French – indulged in the “creative translation” of these words into “natural born citizen” and which purportedly “could not possibly have influenced the framing of the Constitution in 1787…” (id.), then – respectfully – where does the CRS Report identify the source for the specific words John Jay used – “natural born citizen” for his “hint” to George Washington on July 25, 1787?
.................................................. ...
To repeat that which has been frequently stated here in the past: sad. - © 2015, The Post & Email. All rights reserved. Source link. - http://www.thepostemail.com/2015/05/...ii-conclusion/
View the complete Birther Report presentation at:
http://www.birtherreport.com/2015/05...ecognized.html