VATTEL IS LAW
|Emer de Vattel|
Original photograph courtesy:
Bibliothèque publique et universitaire, Neuchâtel -
Public and University Library, Neuchâtel, Switzerland
The Republic of the United States as it stands today is in a Constitutional Crisis. Political forces in the 21st Century antithetical to the system of government established by the Founders and Framers, with the help of a complicit media have colluded to subvert Article II of the Constitution by confounding the term natural born Citizen with Citizen throughout the public discourse to corrupt the legal context of it’s true meaning.
THE CONSTITUTION MATTERS
With great forethought and deliberation, the Framers required a natural born Citizen for the Office of the Presidency as a strong check against foreign influence, divided loyalties and intrigue, because the Chief Executive is also the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. The historical record is clear; this exclusive class of citizen was derived from The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law Applied to the Conduct and to the Affairs of Nations and of Sovereigns, (Book 1, Chapter XIX, §211)   and codified into law in Article II Section 1 Clause 5 of the Constitution. This preeminent treatise by Swiss philosopher and jurist Emer de Vattel was written in French, the diplomatic language of the day, in which many of the Framers were fluent; and a tour de force in international law. Vattel’s Law of Nations was considered an authoritative work based on testimony of the Founders during the American Revolution,   from the writings of the Framers during the Continental Congress    and then after the adoption and ratification of the Constitution.  Additionally, Vattel’s Law of Nations has been cited by Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court,    with 150 citations on the high court as of 2004,   U.S. Congress,    U.S. Presidents,    and the basis of the very curricula comprising natural law at the learning institutions   that taught and enlightened the nation’s Founders and Framers as they created the world’s first Constitutional Republic.
|Emer de Vattel|
I have now found incontrovertible proof that Emer de Vattel is not merely recognized as authoritative, but actual “LAW”!
Photography by Pixel Patriot
© 2016 All rights reserved.
"Vattel, which is at this day generally considered as law.” 
|Peter Stephen du Ponceau|
This reference to Vattel as “Law” was made by Peter Stephen Du Ponceau and is eminently significant for the following reasons:
i) As a French native, Du Ponceau understood Vattel's Law of Nations in its original authored version Le Droit des Gens ou Principes de la Loi Naturelle appliqués à la Conduite et aux Affaires des Nations et des Souverains.
ii) Du Ponceau fought in the American Revolution, a Captain, later Major in the Continental Army. As secretary-interpreter and aide-de-camp to Baron von Steuben at Valley Forge, he dined with General Washington three nights a week. 
iii) Du Ponceau was appointed Secretary to Robert Livingston, who was Secretary of Foreign Affairs for Congress in 1781.
iv) Du Ponceau was admitted to the Philadelphia Bar in 1785 and a leading authority on international law. As a Counsellor at Law, “his services before the Supreme Court of the United States were in frequent demand“    including cases citing Vattel and the law of nations.
v) Renowned in the field of Linguistics, Du Ponceau had a comprehensive understanding of the concepts of Vattel's Law of Nations.
vi) Du Ponceau was elected President of the American Philosophical Society in 1827. This achievement demonstrates a gifted intellect considering the great minds and philosophical luminaries that were his contemporaries in Philadelphia. 
vii) Du Ponceau was President of the Historical Society of Pennsylvania, demonstrating the distinguished honor and societal esteem bestowed upon him.
viii) Du Ponceau was the first Provost of The Law Academy of Philadelphia. 
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 natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.
In an address to The Law Academy of Philadelphia in 1831, Du Ponceau distinguishes the rights an alien receives when becoming a Citizen by virtue of the naturalization Powers of Congress as opposed to those of a natural born Citizen:
“Naturalization may be obtained in the state courts, as well as in those of federal jurisdiction; but it can only be done in execution of a law of Congress. There are states where aliens cannot hold real property, which often makes it necessary for them to be naturalized, as by that means they become entitled to all the privileges and rights of natural born Citizens, except that they cannot be elected to the offices of President and Vice-President.” 
Though the Framers enumerated to Congress the authority for establishing a uniform rule for naturalization in Article VIII, they required a natural born Citizen for the Office of the President and Commander-in-Chief in Article II, and then shielded Article II with the amendment process in Article V.
The exclusive allegiance acquired by a natural born Citizen from one’s circumstances at birth is derived from the law of nature through both Jus Soli (right of soil) AND Jus Sanguinis (right of blood) as opposed to positive law (man-made) such as a statute. Statutorily for the purposes of naturalization, only one U.S. Citizen parent is necessary to confer U.S. Citizenship to their child; however, for Presidential eligibility the converse also applies in that anyone who acquires allegiance to a foreign sovereign nation from either of their parents no matter where they are born, can never be a natural born Citizen. It would be treasonous for Congress to require an alien “attach to the principles of the Constitution” for naturalization as a Citizen while conspiring to prevent enforcement of Article II when convened to count the electoral votes as required by the Framers for the purpose of ensuring sole-allegiance to the Republic.
Even the global diplomatic society, the United Nations; recognizes the authority of and pays homage to Vattel as can be seen directly from their website:
“These rules of customary international law were described in detail by early writers such as Grotius (1625), Bynkershoek (1721) and Vattel (1758).” 
Here are three recent diplomatic papers from the General Assembly of United Nations Official Document System  citing Vattel’s Law of Nations in a legal context:
Just as the Framers referenced Vattel’s Law of Nations in its original French version,  the United Nations drafts some of their diplomatic articles in French pertaining to international law which cite Vattel’s Law of Nations.
On October 16, 1787, immediately after the Constitution was adopted and sent to the States for ratification, U.S. Rep. William Stephens Smith from New York clarified in a letter to John Jay, acting U.S. Secretary of Foreign Affairs, how international relations with the United States couldn’t be counter to the law of nations and cites Vattel’s treatise as the legal context. 
On April 28, 1793, Thomas Jefferson serving as the nation’s first Secretary of State provided guidance in that official capacity to the sitting President of the United States whereby, the question of treaty obligations is to be determined by The Law of Nations of which Vattel is the “authority.”
He didn’t say could or should, but stipulated it decisively. Such a categorical declaration should not come as a surprise from an intellectual statesman who would create a category in his own library dedicated to the Law of Nature and Nations with multiple copies of Vattel.  
On the very same day, Jefferson also penned a letter to James Madison serving as U.S. Representative of Virginia, where he sarcastically quipped how unfathomable it was that there could have even been any serious consideration of nullifying a treaty with France earlier that day:
“on the authority of an ill understood scrap in Vattel 2. § 192” 
Jefferson’s views on the matter are evident from his report to Madison:
i) Vattel is authoritative
ii) Vattel’s Law of Nations is legally binding
iii) The breadth and scope of Vattel’s treatise
iv) the absurdity that as a matter of foreign policy, Vattel’s internationally renowned and authoritative doctrine of treaty obligations might not even be understood, such that “it should be necessary to discuss it?”
Then Jefferson, in a letter on August 3, 1793 to James Madison, again illuminates the preeminence of Vattel:
“Lights from the law of nations on the constructions of treaties. Vattel has been most generally the guide. Bynkershoeck often quoted, Wolf sometimes.” 
The letters between Thomas Jefferson and James Madison (Father of the Constitution)  avowing authority of The Law of Nations, would also indicate the forewarning by Vattel of treaty obligations owing to a “usurper” [2. §197]  had been heeded, hence the precautions enjoined in the Constitution for removal from the Office of the President in Article II, § 1, cl. 6 and failure to qualify for the President-elect in the Twentieth Amendment.
Unquestionably, the influence of Vattel’s Law of Nations was still a strong force on the Constitutional Republic and guiding its ship of state in foreign affairs nearly a century on as evinced from Congressional records:
U.S. Senator James Buchanan of Pennsylvania, Committee on Foreign Affairs: 
i) "The doctrine is laid down in Vattel, an author admitted to be of the highest authority on questions of international law" p.6
ii) "The principle of Vattel, rightly understood, absolutely secures the territorial sovereignty of nations in time of peace by permitting them to punish all invasions of it in their own criminal courts, and his doctrine is eminently calculated to preserve peace among all nations" p.7
U.S. Senate, June 15, 1841
iii) "But Vattel is not fairly subject to the Senator's criticism. On the contrary, he is the highest authority for the opinion we now both entertain" p.11
From the U.S. House of Representatives, U.S. Rep. John Armor Bingham, the principal Framer of the Fourteenth Amendment, acknowledged the circumstances at birth which define a natural born Citizen, as expressed by Vattel in his Law of Nations:
U.S. House, April 11, 1862
i) “All from other lands, who, by the terms of your laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born Citizens"  
|Congressional Globe, House of Representatives, 37th, 2nd Session, p.1639 (1862)|
And just three months before the Fourteenth Amendment’s passage in the Senate, Bingham used Constitutional construction to cement into the canon of American legislative proceedings the circumstances at birth required to be a natural born Citizen: allegiance not owing to any foreign sovereignty inherited through both parents at the moment of first breath within the jurisdiction of the United States, such that this exclusive class of Citizen reserved for the President and Commander-in-Chief became subject to the force of law when it was enacted in the U.S. Constitution Article II, § 1, cl. 5:
U.S. House, March 9th, 1866
ii) “I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born Citizen”  
|Congressional Globe, House of Representatives, 39th Congress, 1st Session, p.1291 (1866)|
Then Bingham, an ardent supporter of the abolition of slaves and equal rights for all, sets the capstone on the debate:
U.S. House, April 25, 1872
iii) “That Dr. Houard is a natural-born citizen of the United States there is not room for the shadow of a doubt. He was born of naturalized parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, and by the express words of the Constitution, as amended to-day, he is declared to all the world to be a citizen of the United States by birth.”  
|Congressional Globe, House of Representatives, 42nd Congress, 2nd Session, p.2791 (1872)|
On August 9th, 1855, Caleb Cushing, serving as U.S. Attorney General rendered an opinion in his official capacity for the United States Attorney General's Office recognizing the fundamental laws of the nation are sacred, citing directly from Vattel's Law of Nations:
"Whatever agents of the British government, whether official or unofficial, acting voluntarily or by orders, have participated in such acts, are not only guilty of a criminal infraction of the statute law, but also, in the language of Vattel, of violating one of the most sacred rights of the nation." 
|United States: Department of Justice|
Opinion of the Attorney General
In the late 19th century, Vattel was still recognized within the legal profession among “the most valuable Law Books now in use and of authority.”  From Classics of International Law, the "cases where the authority of Vattel has determined the decision of the judge could be many times multiplied."  In addition to the original French version, Vattel’s treatise has been translated into English, Spanish, German, Italian, Portuguese, Russian, Polish, Modern Greek and Latin.  The undeniable significance of Vattel’s influence is chronicled in the Encyclopedia of People of the World from the National Library of France, Encyclopédie Des Gens Du Monde Tome XXII, 1844 
“The fundamentals of governments and the constitutions of nations, political relations between nations and the princes, trade relations and other interests that unite or divide the states, all that has changed since Vattel wrote.”
Now let’s examine several treaties and arbitration proceedings between the U.S., Canada and Great Britain; which were necessary to resolve territorial and jurisdictional disputes; the Treaty of Ghent,  The Convention of 1818, the Treaty of Washington  and the North Atlantic Coast Fisheries Arbitration.  The immeasurable significance for the legal authority of Vattel as law is profound, as he is cited and argued by all three sovereign nation states.
For the U.S., Vattel’s entire treatise was:
And after the diplomatic resolution for the treaties, Canada still acknowledged Vattel’s legal authority by publishing his treatise in the Library of Parliament’s law library, by the “authority” of Canada. 
THE RULE OF LAW MATTERS
In 2008 and 2012, Constitutional challenges contested the candidate Barack Obama after he publicly claimed he held dual allegiance at birth and failed to provide documents establishing himself as a natural born Citizen.   The eligibility challenges not denied on procedural grounds as moot or for lack of standing, were summarily thwarted by judicial malfeasance under the guise of court proceedings. Incongruent certificates of nomination and document fraud were denied court certified forensic examination conforming to statutory rules of procedure and the cases that made it to the U.S. Supreme Court were passed over.        The electorate was dumbfounded to learn that unfettered ballot access for the son or daughter of a terrorist, or Mickey Mouse did not disenfranchise their vote. 
Founder and Framer Samuel Adams, a stalwart for natural rights, made it clear that subverting the government is unacceptable, such as obtaining an office unlawfully; and should be deposed by impartial judges:
“If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation.”  
Was it fear, fraud or mistake; which compelled Chief Justice Robert’s departure “from what would otherwise be the most natural reading of the pertinent statutory phrase?”  The dissenting retort by late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia that “Words no longer have meaning" was an ominous warning.
According to Chief Justice John Marshall, enforcement of the eligibility requirement for President in Article II, Section I which is limited to a natural born Citizen, differs from the enforcement of the eligibility requirements for a Representative and Senator in Article I, Section II and III respectively; which are only for that of Citizen. Legally they are not synonymous or interchangeable.
"It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect, and therefore such construction is inadmissible unless the words require it….” Marbury v. Madison. 5 U.S. 137, 174 (1803).
The removal of an ineligible candidate due to conflicting allegiances was the original intent of the Framers, and is still the law of the land.
Vattel Law of Nations
The political juggernaut to subvert Article II of the Constitution continues in 2016 with candidates having multiple allegiances at birth and refusing to fully disclose all identity records, either voluntarily or when requested. Senator Ted Cruz being born in Canada, and Senator Marco Rubio whose parents were not U.S. Citizens at the time he was born;  have survived eligibility contests by plaintiffs seeking to uphold the natural born Citizen requirement in the Constitution. The same judge that previously sanctioned a Mickey Mouse Presidency for Obama was called out of retirement to declare Ted Cruz eligible, thereby navigating from the uncharted waters of the absurd to criminal.
The Electronic Verification of Vital Events System (EVVE), with over 250 million birth records, is used daily to verify identities within seconds for requesting federal and state jurisdictions.  Election officials and the agencies statutorily charged with holding elections should be authorized EVVE users when controversies arise, including oversight to ensure privacy rights aren’t abused while simultaneously ensuring only Article II eligible candidates can raise campaign contributions and be placed on the ballot. Honest Abe would ask why did the Arizona Secretary of State have to exchange emails for several weeks with the Hawaii Department of Health before he would agree to receive (in lieu of a certified copy of a Certification of Live Birth), a statement of verification missing the date of birth and the name of the parents,   while completely ignoring an official law enforcement investigation by a sheriff, who had declared the digital pdf proffered by Obama, purportedly his long form birth certificate; to be a forgery created by an act of fraud? Furthermore, Sheriff Arpaio revealed several felonies were committed when Barack Obama placed the forged and fraudulent electronic document representing his vital record of birth on the government servers of the White House. The investigation determined that the laws of the State of Hawaii have actually allowed children born abroad to obtain Hawaiian birth certificates, a clear and present danger that rises to the level of compromised national security.  To date, the investigation by Sheriff Arpaio and the Maricopa County Cold Case Posse is still ongoing.
Congress derives its right for oversight of the Executive Branch through its implied powers established by the U.S. Constitution,   with precedent for investigation into the Office of the President dating back to 1792.
Former Speaker of the House John Boehner violated his oath to the Constitution by refusing to allow investigations to proceed when presented with evidence of fraud and forgery. The historical record during the period of the founding of the nation, reveals the Representatives of Congress didn’t put loyalty to a political party over our national security. As can be seen from The Secret Journals on the Proceedings of Congress, the delegates from New Jersey were concerned with the lack of oath to the government "from which they derive their authority":
"In the fifth article, where, among other things, the qualifications of the delegates from the several states are described, there is no mention of any oath, test, or declaration, to be taken or made by them previous to their admission to seats in Congress. It is indeed to be presumed the respective states will be careful that the delegates they send to assist in managing the general interest of the union, take the oaths to the government from which they derive their authority, but as the United States, collectively considered, have interests, as well as each particular state, we are of opinion that some test or obligation binding upon each delegate while he continues in the trust, to consult and pursue the former as well as the latter, and particularly to assent to no vote or proceeding which may violate the general confederation, is necessary. The laws and usages of all civilized nations evince the propriety of an oath on such occasions; and the more solemn and important the deposit, the more strong and explicit ought the obligation to be." 
At the point of ratification, the Constitution was fixed and can only be changed through amendment. Congress can’t arbitrarily void the requirement in Article II for a natural born Citizen by statute or usurpation although several attempts have failed. Samuel Adams quotes Vattel directly from the “Law of Nations” in 1772, “Vattel tells us plainly and without hesitation, that ‘the supreme legislative cannot change the constitution,’ ‘that their authority does not extend so far,’ and ‘that they ought to consider the fundamental laws as sacred, if the nation has not, in very express terms, given them power to change them.’”  
The Congressional activities of U.S. Rep. Steve King (R-IA) exemplifies how yet another politician has betrayed his oath under the duress of political correctness or worse.
On July 26, 2012, Rep. King held a streaming-live online town hall meeting and promised to investigate Barack Obama’s ineligibility, but said it would have to wait until after the upcoming election. As a consolation, he said candidates going forward will have to “certify their birth so we know where they’re born and the American people would have to have access to that." Additionally, he also reinforced evidence revealed by Sheriff Arpaio’s official criminal investigation, whereby a telegram from a foreign birth could generate a Hawaiian birth announcement. 
On January 8, 2016, Rep. King, defended Senator Ted Cruz's U.S. Citizenship, "He's a citizen by virtue of his birth to a mother who is an American Citizen and a father who soon became one."  However, natural born Citizen is the more restrictive Presidential requirement, not merely a Citizen and Cruz's father was not even naturalized as a United States Citizen until 2005. 
|Impeachment Trial of President Andrew Johnson|
Washington, D.C., February 25th, 1868
U.S. Rep. John Bingham, author of the first Enforcement Act passed by Congress prohibiting discrimination, was also unwavering and resolute in the enforcement of the Rule of Law amid a previous Constitutional crisis:
"I ask you, Senators, to consider that we stand this day pleading for the violated majesty of the law, by the graves of a half million of martyred hero-patriots who made death beautiful by the sacrifice of themselves for their country, the Constitution, and the laws, and who by their sublime example have taught us that all must obey the law; that none are above the law; that no man lives for himself alone, but each for all; that some must die that the State may live ; that the citizen is at best but for to day, while the Commonwealth is for all time; and that position, however high, patronage, however powerful, cannot be permitted to shelter crime to the peril of the Republic."   
“In 10 months, I will no longer be President of the United States. But in 10 months, I will -- contrary to Mr. Trump's opinion -- still be a citizen of the United States.”  
Reading Made Easy for Foreigners (1909)
15. Only a natural-born Citizen of the United States can become President or Vice-President of the United States. 
So in observance and honor of Law Day, 36 U.S.C. § 113, and Loyalty Day, 36 U.S.C. § 113, in the United States of America; seek the truth because the Truth matters, honor your oath to the Constitution and demand prosecution for violations of the oath because allegiance to the Constitution matters, and enforce the law because the Rule of Law matters, no one is above the law.
Vattel is Law, U.S. Const. Article II, § 1, cl. 5, and usurpation without redress is tyranny.
Defender of the Truth
© Pixel Patriot 2016
(All rights reserved.)
Book 1, Chapter 19 § 212
pp. 1345-1347, 1350-1351
pp. 165, 333
pp. 165, 333
pp. 48, 56, 64, 70
pp. ii, 209
pp. 14, 22, 35, 47, 211, 441, 447
pp. 2452-2454, 2457-2458, 2461, 2463, 2465, 2467, 2474, 2483, 2503, 2508, 2510, 2520, 2527, 2541-2542