It seems the term ālaw of nationsā was commonly used at the time to describe the set of laws, both natural and those established by treaty, between sovereign states. This is reinforced by the context of the clause being crimes committed outside of the United States itself
So again, the laws of the USA alone, govern the USA. Treaties made by the USA with foreign nations, constituting the "law of nations," is a product of the USA, of Congress, of law approved by Congress, in accordance with the requirements of the Constitution.
You do realize how all of this hurts your claim that the states are sole, exclusive sovereigns, right?
It also has the word ""IS"", so there, that proves you are correct about the entire thing....
Vattels Law of Nations is by far, the most comprehensive piece of International Law that has ever been compiled, and made into an easy reading format....
It is for that reason, that the Founders had many copies of it made and sent over from France....
I find it interesting that you chose to make a reference to one specific piece and then proclaimed that it proves me Wrong, somehow, and yet chose to completely ignore something even more important further down the page, vis;
""I did find some correspondence about acquiring copies of Vattelās book, along with a few instances of Vattel being read or used as an example. There are even a few examples of Vattel either being quoted directly or where it is assumed that something someone said was an idea coming from his work. ""
Also::
"" Although, only referenced once in the Constitution it was referenced thirteen times, according to Madisonās notes, by Constitutional Convention delegates during the Constitutional Convention and Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story in his Commentaries on the Constitution referenced it numerous times when expounding on Constitutional clauses dealing with foreign policy. Additionally, one can also see evidence of the Law of Nations articulated in George Washingtonās farewell address, the Monroe Doctrine, in every Presidentās Congressional request for a declaration of war until the Civil War, and in other writings of our founders. The absence of a declaratory statement identifying the Law of Nations as the foundation of American foreign policy should not be taken to mean that its tenants are any less binding today. Just like English Common Law was the foundation upon which the Constitution was written, so too is the Law of Nations the foundation upon which the framers defined the foreign policy powers delegated to our national government from the people.""
https://americanfoundingprinciples.com/law-of-nations/
The Law of Nations has always been ""International Law"", For 12,000 Years it was International Law, although Kings and such riff raff made Changes or addons to it to better suit their own personal causes, and since the founders were putting together a Federation, they needed the Worlds best compilation of International Laws, to refer to so they could get the best results....
I'm finding it rather baffling how it is that you cannot see that we have Two sets of International Laws, one set is the Obvious External International Law, and then the Constitution is Internal International Law....
Oh well, I'm just some dumb hick bastard trying to speak, and You are the one with the Masters degrees....
Has indeed significantly influenced the development of laws, including international treaties and agreements, throughout history, and there is evidence indicating that the American Founders were away of him and influenced by him, during the creation of our Constitution.
Oh well, I'm just some dumb hick bastard trying to speak,
Never said you were. But it does seem like you're the unfortunate victim of two gaslighting efforts, from both the Lost Cause apologists and the "herr derr FeDeRaL GoV iS aLl eViL, ConStiTutiOn BaD" covert anarchists. Not a good combo.
and You are the one with the Masters degrees....
In all honesty, I learned far more about history and reality from outside of formal classes. Not saying I didn't have some outstanding profs and classmates to help increase my knowledge and develop my research and analytical skills, but the truth is that most upper level education is a racket... this, coming from somebody who spent the time and money getting the degrees and then teaching college classes.
Education is what the individual makes of it, from all types of sources, including having discussions on the internet with random anons... and for FREE to boot! šÆš
There is nothing inherently bad about the U.S. Constitution, but I believe we may have been better under the articles of Confederation, yet, it's just a little late for that experiment, since the South was fully stopped from employing those Freedoms...
They only tried to remove themselves from the Union, not from the Creation that the Founders first set up, the Articles of Confederation....
I find that there are a few places where the Constitution could use a little upgrade, as an Improvement, but not many, and not enough to make a huge difference, but mainly just More Restrictions placed on Congress than anything else....
And when I look outwardly, I see lots of problems that do arise from the Once Hallowed Halls of the various CollAges, wherein the Perverts of the Constitution have been perverting it for ~ 60-70 Years....
And the students, were never taught things like ::
since the South was fully stopped from employing those Freedoms...
Their actual rebellion was quashed, yes. The "Yankee" consideration of rebellion 50 years prior (condemned by the southern states) over Mr. Madison's war, luckily didn't make it to requiring bullets. In multiple instances, covering all geographic sections (don't forget about the Mormons in Utah), the theoretical claim was proven wanting in legitimacy.
They only tried to remove themselves from the Union, not from the Creation that the Founders first set up, the Articles of Confederation....
They claimed they had the nonexistent constitutional right to leave the USA. Again. The Union technically dates back to 1774. But the establishment of the USA as a nation, was 1776. If they just wanted to go back to the Articles, then why was their purported constitution of their new "country" a near carbon copy of the US Constitution, albeit with the explicit recognition of slavery as being not only a legal right, but a natural right, as well as give the federal government of the so-called CSA even more power than that of the USA?
I find that there are a few places where the Constitution could use a little upgrade, as an Improvement, but not many, and not enough to make a huge difference, but mainly just More Restrictions placed on Congress than anything else....
Agreed. The rebels thought the Constitution needed to upgrade too... explicitly and forever protecting slavery.
And when I look outwardly, I see lots of problems that do arise from the Once Hallowed Halls of the various CollAges, wherein the Perverts of the Constitution have been perverting it for ~ 60-70 Years....
Yeah man. Most colleges and universities are grifts and upper level education is largely a racket. I'd not advise most people to waste the money or get into massive debt.
From your own provided link:
So again, the laws of the USA alone, govern the USA. Treaties made by the USA with foreign nations, constituting the "law of nations," is a product of the USA, of Congress, of law approved by Congress, in accordance with the requirements of the Constitution.
You do realize how all of this hurts your claim that the states are sole, exclusive sovereigns, right?
Oh, I see your game....
It also has the word ""IS"", so there, that proves you are correct about the entire thing....
Vattels Law of Nations is by far, the most comprehensive piece of International Law that has ever been compiled, and made into an easy reading format....
It is for that reason, that the Founders had many copies of it made and sent over from France....
I find it interesting that you chose to make a reference to one specific piece and then proclaimed that it proves me Wrong, somehow, and yet chose to completely ignore something even more important further down the page, vis;
""I did find some correspondence about acquiring copies of Vattelās book, along with a few instances of Vattel being read or used as an example. There are even a few examples of Vattel either being quoted directly or where it is assumed that something someone said was an idea coming from his work. ""
Also::
"" Although, only referenced once in the Constitution it was referenced thirteen times, according to Madisonās notes, by Constitutional Convention delegates during the Constitutional Convention and Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story in his Commentaries on the Constitution referenced it numerous times when expounding on Constitutional clauses dealing with foreign policy. Additionally, one can also see evidence of the Law of Nations articulated in George Washingtonās farewell address, the Monroe Doctrine, in every Presidentās Congressional request for a declaration of war until the Civil War, and in other writings of our founders. The absence of a declaratory statement identifying the Law of Nations as the foundation of American foreign policy should not be taken to mean that its tenants are any less binding today. Just like English Common Law was the foundation upon which the Constitution was written, so too is the Law of Nations the foundation upon which the framers defined the foreign policy powers delegated to our national government from the people."" https://americanfoundingprinciples.com/law-of-nations/
The Law of Nations has always been ""International Law"", For 12,000 Years it was International Law, although Kings and such riff raff made Changes or addons to it to better suit their own personal causes, and since the founders were putting together a Federation, they needed the Worlds best compilation of International Laws, to refer to so they could get the best results....
I'm finding it rather baffling how it is that you cannot see that we have Two sets of International Laws, one set is the Obvious External International Law, and then the Constitution is Internal International Law....
Oh well, I'm just some dumb hick bastard trying to speak, and You are the one with the Masters degrees....
Has indeed significantly influenced the development of laws, including international treaties and agreements, throughout history, and there is evidence indicating that the American Founders were away of him and influenced by him, during the creation of our Constitution.
Never said you were. But it does seem like you're the unfortunate victim of two gaslighting efforts, from both the Lost Cause apologists and the "herr derr FeDeRaL GoV iS aLl eViL, ConStiTutiOn BaD" covert anarchists. Not a good combo.
In all honesty, I learned far more about history and reality from outside of formal classes. Not saying I didn't have some outstanding profs and classmates to help increase my knowledge and develop my research and analytical skills, but the truth is that most upper level education is a racket... this, coming from somebody who spent the time and money getting the degrees and then teaching college classes.
Education is what the individual makes of it, from all types of sources, including having discussions on the internet with random anons... and for FREE to boot! šÆš
There is nothing inherently bad about the U.S. Constitution, but I believe we may have been better under the articles of Confederation, yet, it's just a little late for that experiment, since the South was fully stopped from employing those Freedoms...
They only tried to remove themselves from the Union, not from the Creation that the Founders first set up, the Articles of Confederation....
I find that there are a few places where the Constitution could use a little upgrade, as an Improvement, but not many, and not enough to make a huge difference, but mainly just More Restrictions placed on Congress than anything else....
And when I look outwardly, I see lots of problems that do arise from the Once Hallowed Halls of the various CollAges, wherein the Perverts of the Constitution have been perverting it for ~ 60-70 Years....
And the students, were never taught things like ::
https://wallbuilders.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2017/02/1828ElementaryCatechismConstitution.pdf
Their actual rebellion was quashed, yes. The "Yankee" consideration of rebellion 50 years prior (condemned by the southern states) over Mr. Madison's war, luckily didn't make it to requiring bullets. In multiple instances, covering all geographic sections (don't forget about the Mormons in Utah), the theoretical claim was proven wanting in legitimacy.
They claimed they had the nonexistent constitutional right to leave the USA. Again. The Union technically dates back to 1774. But the establishment of the USA as a nation, was 1776. If they just wanted to go back to the Articles, then why was their purported constitution of their new "country" a near carbon copy of the US Constitution, albeit with the explicit recognition of slavery as being not only a legal right, but a natural right, as well as give the federal government of the so-called CSA even more power than that of the USA?
Agreed. The rebels thought the Constitution needed to upgrade too... explicitly and forever protecting slavery.
Yeah man. Most colleges and universities are grifts and upper level education is largely a racket. I'd not advise most people to waste the money or get into massive debt.