Recent U.S. Supreme Court Decision Quotes Vattel’s “The Law of Nations”

“TAKEN AS A GIVEN BY THE FOUNDERS”

by Joseph DeMaio, ©2019

(Jun. 30, 2019) — Recently, your faithful servant (moi) submitted a post for consideration here at The P&E, which the intrepid editor accepted and published.  The post arose in connection with the continuing question of who is – and more importantly, who is not (and was not) – eligible to the office of the president as a “natural born Citizen.”  Based on new information received, a correction needs to be made.

Specifically, the post addressed the “removal” of the original Congressional Research Service (“CRS”) April 3, 2009 Memorandum from the “scribd.com” website where it had originally appeared on the Internet.   Go ahead, click on the link and see what pops up.  The image of the memo was likely originally posted by eligibility guru Mario Apuzzo at his website.

There is no explanation accompanying the notice of removal and no indication of why it was done or who ordered/requested that it be scrubbed.  This was the original CRS Memorandum prepared by a CRS lawyer, Jack Maskell, who has been the subject of many of your faithful servant’s offerings over the years, and in particular, his (or his superiors’) substantive ellipsis alteration of a quote from the U.S. Supreme Court opinion in Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939).

The scribd.com “terms of use” policy suggests that perhaps the person or entity who first “uploaded” the 2009 CRS Memorandum requested that it be removed.  The policy also allows the conclusion that scribd.com itself decided to remove it because of some violation of policy.   All we know, however, is that the document “has been removed from scribd.”  Note, however, that the URL (uniform resource locator) for the document contains the identifying number/file name “41131059/CRS.”  This will come in handy later.

Because it was believed that the potential existed for some ulterior or clandestine motive to “erase” the initial appearance of the memo from public access and scrutiny – consistent with the “Memory Hole” tactics of the CRS and Obama regime apparatchiks –  your faithful servant penned the post “Like it Never Happened.”  The background and motivation for that post is explained therein for anyone interested in the details.

However, fortuitously and out of the blue, a P&E reader alerted the intrepid editor that another copy of the 2009 CRS memorandum was still in existence and could still be accessed at the scribd.com website.  The URL number/file name for this document is: “70476658/CRS.”  It will be interesting to see whether this document remains posted at the scribd.com site or whether it, too, might eventually get removed.  If you want to preserve it, you should save a screenshot of it while you can.  Moreover, if in the near future it, too, disappears, rest assured, there is something rotten in the Deep State.

The point, however, is this: to the extent that the P&E post “Like it Never Happened” left the impression that because Barack Hussein Obama II’s usurpation of the presidency had been successfully completed, dark and nefarious forces were now at work to begin scrubbing the evidence which facilitated the usurpation – at least for his second term –, that impression is modified to reflect the continued accessibility on the Internet of the 2009 CRS Memo.  However, the impression is not altogether rescinded, because there are many other indicia which persist suggesting that the “natural born Citizen” and eligibility clause issues contained in the Constitution are still under attack and will surely resurface in the future.

As noted with regard to Sen. Kamala Harris here and here and Rep. Tulsi Gabbard here, the constitutional “natural born Citizen” issue will continue to bubble up and fester on the political landscape until the Supreme Court screws up the courage to accept jurisdiction over a “ripe” “case or controversy” and decide, one way or the other, who is correct: (1) Emmerich (or Emer) de Vattel and the Founders, or (2) Jack Maskell.  The smart money is on the former.

And speaking of de Vattel, even as this post was being composed, your faithful servant came across an interesting nugget.  Recall that the 2009 CRS Memo and subsequent 2011 and 2016 “Reports” trivialize and dismiss the seminal work of E. de Vattel, The Law of Nations.  Indeed, the 2011 CRS Report, Nov. 14, 2011), at 22, makes the absurd assertion that, because (purportedly) no French-to-English translation of The Law of Nations was available in 1787 when the Founders were drafting the Constitution, they could not possibly have been influenced by de Vattel when he used the term “naturels ou indigenes” or have contemplated those words meant “natural born citizens.” Reasoning such as this, coming from the repository of “the nation’s best thinking,” gives new meaning to the term “goofy.”

In this regard, the aforementioned nugget comes in the form of the May 13, 2019 (hot off the press) 5-4 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt,  __ U.S. __, 139 S. Ct. 1485 (2019).  The case involved a tax dispute and issues of state sovereign immunity.  But the discussion of the origins of state sovereign immunity in the majority opinion (Thomas, J.) contains this gem (139 S.Ct. at 1493-1494): “According to the founding era’s foremost expert on the law of nations, “[i]t does not … belong to any foreign power to take cognizance of the administration of [another] sovereign, to set himself up for a judge of his conduct, and to oblige him to alter it.” 2 E. de Vattel, The Law of Nations § 55, p. 155 (J. Chitty ed. 1883).  The sovereign is “exemp[t] … from all [foreign] jurisdiction.” 4 id., § 108, at 486. The founding generation thus took as given that States could not be haled involuntarily before each other’s courts.” (Emphasis added)

With those words, the Supreme Court once again – and in textual opinion rather than in a footnote as in United States Steel Corp. v. Multistate Tax Commission, 434 U.S. 452, 462, n.12 (1977) – acknowledges de Vattel as the “foremost expert” on the law of nations and that “thus,” the “founding generation” relied on his teachings and the provisions of The Law of Nations when drafting the Constitution.  Stated otherwise, if the principles of de Vattel’s tome articulated in § 55 are good enough to be “taken as a given by the Founders” and serve as a guide for the Supreme Court in adjudicating a present-day issue regarding the sovereign immunity of the states, why are not the principles of § 212 properly accorded the same degree of authority regarding constitutional eligibility under Art. 2, § 1, Cl. 5 instead of being marginalized and relegated to a lower level of import?

Inquiring minds want to know.

13 Responses to "Recent U.S. Supreme Court Decision Quotes Vattel’s “The Law of Nations”"

  1. Adrien Nash   Friday, July 19, 2019 at 7:58 PM

    I’ve written dozens expositions to explain Vattel and the term ‘natural born citizen’. I just now reviewed one of them, and can say without doubt that no one can possibly understand the subject without reading its lengthy illumination.
    It explains things that have never been explained, defined, or even explored.
    Whatever you ‘know’ or don’t know now, your view will be very different after reading this:
    Understanding Vattel, Citizenship, and Presidential Eligibility
    https://h2ooflife.wordpress.com/2013/09/03/understanding-vattel-citizenship-and-presidential-eligibility/

  2. Adrien Nash   Friday, July 19, 2019 at 7:42 PM

    I have to wonder if Apuzzo’s computer is displaying the copy stored on his own hard drive as a software shortcut to shorten ‘upload’ waiting. It seems like it would not be likely unless he visited the page within a period of time shorter than the original posting year. I doubt he has visited that page in many years but who knows how long the operating system might keep it ‘handy’ in its ‘recent websites’ memory.

  3. Bernie Ohls   Tuesday, July 2, 2019 at 1:58 PM

    The 1760 and 1792 editions say “natives, or indigene”

  4. Dennis Becker   Tuesday, July 2, 2019 at 10:32 AM

    Although published after the Constitutional Convention, this 1792 Dublin edition by Luke White is interesting.

    https://books.google.com/books?id=VlJgAAAAcAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=editions:K-pSNXmnZzsC&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjp1obvt5bjAhUCF6wKHRUeDIs4ChC7BTADegQIARAW#v=onepage&q&f=false

  5. James Carter   Tuesday, July 2, 2019 at 10:27 AM

    I just got the message:

    “Notice

    This document has been removed from Scribd”

    I emailed a screen shot of it to Attorney Mario Apuzzo.

  6. Dennis Becker   Tuesday, July 2, 2019 at 10:19 AM

    For anyone interested here is the 1760 Newbery edition of Vattel’s Law of Nations.

    https://books.google.com/books?id=MRo2AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA176&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=4#v=onepage&q&f=false

  7. Bob68   Tuesday, July 2, 2019 at 12:27 AM

    CDR Kerchner,

    I still have my original copy of the 2009 CRS memo complete with its cover letter, which I sent a copy of to Mr. Apuzzo in 2010. It was sent to me in October of 2010 from the office of then Senator Blanche Lincoln. I want you to know I still have the original copy sent to me from Senator Lincoln and will send Mr. Apuzzo and/or you another copy if it’s needed..

    I also get the message, “the document has been removed”, when I go to Mr. Apuzzo’s SCRIBD account.
    Bob68

  8. Bernie Ohls   Monday, July 1, 2019 at 12:46 PM

    There were IIRC at least three English language versions of Law of Nations published before 1787.

  9. Steven Tyler   Monday, July 1, 2019 at 11:50 AM

    …, why are not the principles of § 212 properly accorded the same degree of authority regarding constitutional eligibility under Art. 2, § 1, Cl. 5 instead of being marginalized and relegated to a lower level of import?

    Excellent question. Little steps to build a foundation.

    Remarkable, few question why the framers inserted “natural born” before “Citizen”.
    In this era of fluid definitions, many do not know the meaning of natural born.
    Few understand Man made Law establishing a framework to grant visiting people Citizenship, versus the natural born, Law not required, method.
    The Left works overtime to blur the distinction.

    If you are born to Mexican Citizens on Mexican soil, you are not a Citizen of Iceland!

    No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

  10. Rick Hyatt   Monday, July 1, 2019 at 11:12 AM

    Mueller’s testimony will be the shocker of the century, as he’ll have to tell of the massive Intell cover-up of the counter-running of the Obamas and Clintons by the GHWB’s CIA. all these years. Rickahyatt.blogspot.com

  11. Robert Laity   Monday, July 1, 2019 at 4:53 AM

    Joe, On the “goofy” argument that no English translation of Vattel’s French translation, the fact is that in 1787 the official language of Diplomacy WAS French. The founders were familiar with the French Language. It was Benjamin Franklin who brought the book back with him from France. Ben was Ambassador TO France. It is a book that George Washington borrowed from the Library and never returned (Don’t worry, the family recently gave the library another copy of the book from that era valued at $300,000). The founders were very educated men. They understood and read French. “Les Naturels. ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont, nes dans le pays de parents citoyens”. The Natural Born are those born in a country to parents who are citizens.

    It does not say “de UN Parent Citoyen” or of one parent citizen. It says “Parents Citoyens” PLURAL. Since we all have only (two) Parents, THAT is the only conclusion that can be reached by use of the phrase “de parentS citoyenS”.

  12. CDR Kerchner (Ret)   Sunday, June 30, 2019 at 10:36 PM

    All: Regarding the nefarious activity apparently going on with SCRIBD, if worse comes to worse Atty Mario Apuzzo has a paper copy of the 2009 CRS Memo which was provided to him in 2010 by a staffer for a Member of Congress. Said staffer wanted us to know about this document since we had the Kerchner et al vs Obama and Congress et al lawsuit active at the time. See: https://www.scribd.com/document/61221761/Kerchner-v-Obama-Congress-DOC-00-Table-of-Contents-for-2nd-Amended-Complaint for more on that lawsuit which got deflected by the courts on the technicality of standing, etc. I have made extra PDF copies of the scanned document. I suggest others do too. And also take screen shots of any SCRIBD error message being seen for any and all of Atty Apuzzo’s writings and uploads at his SCRIBD account if you find any others that have “disappeared” and send them to Atty Apuzzo via his contact info at: http://puzo1.blogspot.com I wonder who or what else SCRIBD is now targeting for what looks like “shadow banning”.

  13. CDR Kerchner (Ret)   Sunday, June 30, 2019 at 10:03 PM

    All: I had recently contacted Attorney Mario Apuzzo when I became aware that his upload of the original 2009 CRS Memo back in 2010 had been removed from his SCRIBD account. He was unaware it had been removed. He did not remove it. And no one at SCRIBD had told him it was removed. Worse yet, he told me that he can still see the document when he as the uploader clicks on the link. Thus it appears that Attorney Mario Apuzzo’s document is being “shadow banned”, i.e., the uploader that is Mario can see it but to the rest of the world the message is shown that it has been removed. Something nefarious is indeed going on at SCRIBD just like it is going on at Twitter and other major online sites. Last I heard Attorney Apuzzo was checking into it. If anyone wishes to contact Atty Apuzzo, his contact information is found in the upper right of his blog: http://puzo1.blogspot.com Coincidentally his most recent posting in his blog, a re-post of a prior posting, has a link to the subject 2009 CRS Memo. He says when he himself clicks on the link he can see and read the 2009 CRS Memo. But as I told him I and others clicking on that link see the “the document has been removed” message. I shared a screen shot of the error message with Atty Mario Apuzzo. I would suggest anyone else seeing the “the document has been removed” message take a screen shot and send it to Atty Apuzzo for evidence in case he is or chooses to take action against SCRIBD for such a nefarious act on their part … “shadow banning”.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.