In one of the threads of The Concord Monitor, our friend KBOA is claiming:



One would think that a 1784 case in the New York City Mayor's Court that said a single book by a foreign author was the law of the land would be more prominent. Can anybody find the actual case? Plenty of people write about it as an early case of judicial review, but I'm coming up blank. I also find it hard to believe that Vattel's Law of Nations and the Constitution were so prominently mentioned 3 years before the Philadelphia Convention thought of actually writing the Constitution in the first place.

As I recall from her posts at Doc C's, she believes that every time the term "law of nations" is used, it is a reference to de Vattel's book.

There's a lengthy treatment of Rutgers v Waddington here.

I believe that Hamilton did quote Vattel in his argument but of course on the international law of treaties rather than the municipal law of citizenship.

Well, everyone knows a New York City Mayor's Court decision interpreting the powers of Congress under the Articles of Confederation is binding on every court today when interpreting our own Constitution. Of course, there's a legal doctrine after the Constitution that states the principles after the Constitution (The Charming Betsy). This decision has been so diluted and eroded by subsequent decisions, though, that it as well is practically abandoned as a doctrine. That case says that when interpreting municipal law (before that phrase had been adopted), if possible, it should be interpreted in a manner that does not contradict the law of nations (and yes it uses that phrase). However, it also recognizes the power of Congress, under the Constitution, to draft legislation that does, in fact, abrogate international law.

The United States has long been of the position, since the adoption of the Constitution, that treaties are not self-executing and that when U.S. law contradicts international law, domestic law prevails. This is actually a point of contention with other nations, which feel rightly that this has often placed us in violation of our treaty obligations. For example, the recent decision Medellín v. Texas in which SCOTUS issued the appalling and contemptible ruling that one state acting alone can put the nation's citizens in danger by just ignoring the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations and executing a man who was never granted consular access. Texas has a policy of simply ignoring that, opening U.S. citizens to the same treatment by nations we have insulted in this manner.

Of course, I am taking a pro-international law perspective. The birfers, while purportedly conservatives, and the kind of idiots who put up signs in their yard saying idiotic shit like that the UN is taking over the world and we need to get out of it, are basically saying international law trumps United States law. This would place the U.S. under the jurisdiction of international criminal tribunals. I don't think these morons are really thinking their bullshit through, in addition to picking cases from long defunct courts that are not remotely binding precedent on any currently existing court.

I remember once asking Carl Swensson, after he went on at length about how the Founders relied upon Vattel in drafting the Constitution, how he knew that the Founders relied upon Vattel specifically on the issue of natural born citizenship. After all, pointing out that George Washington had a copy of Law of Nations, or that Franklin once said the book was influential in general, is far from the same thing as saying that one particular line in Vattel's huge tome on international law was the specific inspiration for one particular clause in the Constitution.

Carl seemed thrown by the question. Not only did he not have a good answer for it, but it appeared that he hadn't even *considered* it before. He had no explanation for that leap of logic, because he had never even realized that there was a gap.

As a public service, I shall translate that anecdote into birferese:

Loren remembers once asking patriot Carl Swensson, after he went on at length about explained how the Founders relied upon Vattel in drafting the Constitution, how he knew that the Founders relied upon Vattel specifically on the issue of natural born citizenship some distracting Obot side issue. Carl couldn't be thrown -- after all, pointing out that George Washington had a copy of Law of Nations, or that Franklin once said the book was influential in general, is far from exactly the same thing as saying that one particular line in Vattel's huge tome on international law was the specific inspiration for one particular clause in the Constitution.

Carl Loren seemed thrown by the question reply. Not only did he not have a good answer for it, but it appeared that he hadn't even *considered* it before. He had no explanation rebuttal for that leap of logic, because he had never even realized that there was a gap a birther could actually have done his homework and know real facts of history.

You're welcome