Main Menu

More questions for Mr. Apuzzo (2)

This is the last of my “Lost articles.” It comes from 2009.

I’m trying go the hang of this Law of Nations thing and what it says (in later English translation) about natural born citizens.

Let me offer this hypothetical situation, suggested by a commenter here.

First, this from the Law of Nations (Book II):

§ 122. Right of carrying off women.

… A nation cannot preserve and perpetuate itself, except by propagation. A nation of men has, therefore, a right to procure women, who are absolutely necessary to its preservation; and if its neighbours, who have a redundancy of females, refuse to give some of them in marriage to those men, the latter may justly have recourse to force.

Now let us suppose that this situation did occur and a citizen of X should by force carry off a woman of a foreign country, and that he should marry her (her consent given to insure her survival). Would their offspring be natural born citizens?


Also, is this bit from the Law of Nations (Book I) philosophically relevant to your argument of international law controlling citizenship and qualifications of the president of the US?

§ 67. That the right to the succession ought not to depend on the judgment of a foreign power.

…As the nation has established the succession, to the nation alone belongs the power of acknowledging those who are capable of succeeding; and consequently, on its judgment and laws alone must depend the validity of the marriage of its sovereigns and the legitimacy of their birth,

, , , , , ,

8 Responses to More questions for Mr. Apuzzo (2)

  1. avatar
    misha September 5, 2009 at 3:58 pm #

    Shh…don’t point out their hypocrisy.

  2. avatar
    richCares September 5, 2009 at 4:13 pm #

    hey don’t make fun of Apuzzo, it’s bad enough that he is losing his case, poor guy.

  3. avatar
    jtx September 5, 2009 at 5:22 pm #

    misha & richCares:

    So let’s see – you’re now scraping the bottom of the barrel for any inapplicable bits of data; no matter how inapplicable they are.

    Sounds like desperation has set in!! BTW the English edition was in the US prior to the Constitutional Convention but either reads just as well.

  4. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 6, 2009 at 8:46 pm #

    jtx, lighten up. This is supposed to be funny.

  5. avatar
    nbc September 7, 2009 at 4:42 pm #

    Vattel quoted in Venus Rae Master 12 US 253 1814

    Vattel, who though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands says, “the citizens are the members of the civil society bound to this society by certain duties and subject to its authority they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers and succeed to all their rights inhabitants distinguished citizens.

  6. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 7, 2009 at 5:58 pm #

    Apuzzo should have a field day with The Venus. It has all sorts of juicy quotes he can pull out of context and maybe even some he can leave in context. It’s important when reading the case to note that “the law of nations” refers to international law, and not de Vattel’s book per se. The court suggests that it has consulted several “writers” on “the law of nations”.

  7. avatar
    nbc September 7, 2009 at 6:23 pm #

    I thought it was SCOTUS ruling on appeal from a District Court.

    Dr. Conspiracy: . Of course, this is a district court decision.

  8. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy September 7, 2009 at 8:50 pm #

    Oops, you’re right.