TomAiello 26 #101 April 1, 2009 Quote Quote … For example, in the original text of the Declaration of Independence, all of the following words and phrases are capitalized. I don't think they were all references to specific published works, nor do I believe that any such works should be viewed as incorporated wholly into the document by reference: … Interesting that you would use the Declaration of Independence as a red herring rather than address the points made about the Constitution. I did that because it was the first of the founding documents that I pulled up side by side comparisons of the original and modern capitalizations. After I had made a list of the capitalized words in the first couple paragraphs, I figured that anyone could easily see for themselves the original texts (on the page I linked), and understand the point I was making. To specifically address your point: The phrase "law of nations" is capitalized in the original text, because it was the custom at that time to capitalize such phrases. In the accepted modernized capitalization, it is not capitalized. If you want a list of words and phrases that were capitalized in the original section to which you refer, and are generally not capitalized in a modern capitalization, here it is: Quote Power To Taxes Duties Imposts Excises Defence (looking forward to hearing how this implies something because it varies from the modern US spelling) Welfare Duties Imposts Excises Commerce Nations States Indian Tribes Rule of Naturalization Laws Bankruptcies Money Value Coin Weights Measures Punishment Securities Coin Post Offices Post Roads Progress Arts Sciences Times Authors Inventors Right Writings Discoveries Tribunals Court Piracies Felonies Seas Offenses Law of Nations And so forth. This does not indicate any special intention by the framers to emphasize the phrase you are picking out, at least not any more than any of the other capitalized words or phrases (for example "To"). The use of the phrase "law of nations" in the constitution is a reference to the body of international law. It is not an attempt to include an entire published work by that name into the constitution by reference.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #102 April 1, 2009 Quote Let me be more specific then. Do you think what Congress has done so far in dealing with the auto industry falls outside its authority? THAT is the basis for this entire thread. Disclaimer: all I know about it is what I read in the article. However, it looks like mostly taxing and spending clause stuff, and in this case the argument could be made that they have the authority to spend the money because it's tied to interstate commerce, as it deals with the auto industry, which is clearly interstate. Do I like it? No. Is it probably constitutional? Yes. However, making legal arguments while doped up on cough medicine is making my head ache even more, so I'm going to bed. If I'm still home sick, we can continue this tomorrow. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #103 April 1, 2009 Quote Said that. Oops. You did say that. My apologies. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #104 April 1, 2009 Quote Quote Quote … For example, in the original text of the Declaration of Independence, all of the following words and phrases are capitalized. I don't think they were all references to specific published works, nor do I believe that any such works should be viewed as incorporated wholly into the document by reference: … Interesting that you would use the Declaration of Independence as a red herring rather than address the points made about the Constitution. I did that because it was the first of the founding documents that I pulled up side by side comparisons of the original and modern capitalizations. After I had made a list of the capitalized words in the first couple paragraphs, I figured that anyone could easily see for themselves the original texts (on the page I linked), and understand the point I was making. To specifically address your point: The phrase "law of nations" is capitalized in the original text, because it was the custom at that time to capitalize such phrases. In the accepted modernized capitalization, it is not capitalized. If you want a list of words and phrases that were capitalized in the original section to which you refer, and are generally not capitalized in a modern capitalization, here it is: … And so forth. This does not indicate any special intention by the framers to emphasize the phrase you are picking out, at least not any more than any of the other capitalized words or phrases (for example "To"). The use of the phrase "law of nations" in the constitution is a reference to the body of international law. It is not an attempt to include an entire published work by that name into the constitution by reference. Again, you ignore the larger point that the founding fathers chose to use the term treaty in Article II instead of some nondescript description like "law of nations." Some of founding fathers knew of Vattel's work. It is absurd to believe that they used the title of a well known treatise on governance as a reference to international law while describing the powers of Congress. Do you really believe the Founding Fathers were so clumsy that they would make such an obvious mistake? Call me skeptical, but I believe they were more careful with their phrase selection.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #105 April 1, 2009 Quote[Tom Aiello]The use of the phrase "law of nations" in the constitution is a reference to the body of international law. It is not an attempt to include an entire published work by that name into the constitution by reference. Quote[jcd11235] Again, you ignore the larger point that the founding fathers chose to use the term treaty in Article II instead of some nondescript description like "law of nations." Some of founding fathers knew of Vattel's work. It is absurd to believe that they used the title of a well known treatise on governance as a reference to international law while describing the powers of Congress. Do you really believe the Founding Fathers were so clumsy that they would make such an obvious mistake? Call me skeptical, but I believe they were more careful with their phrase selection. After re-reading the phrase "law of nations" in the context that it's used in the Constitution, and looking up/comparing it against Vattel's Law of Nations, I believe that Tom's interpretation of what the Framers of the Constitution meant when they drafted-in that phrase is the correct one. Vattel's work may very well have insinuated the term "law of nations" into then-pop culture as more-or-less synonymous with "accepted principles of civilized international law". But the Framers did not intend the use of that phrase to essentially "incorporate by reference" the entirety of Vattel's treatise into the Constitution; according to accepted principles of constitutional and statutory construction, if that's what the Framers had intended, they would have expressly said so. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #106 April 1, 2009 QuoteQuote[Tom Aiello]The use of the phrase "law of nations" in the constitution is a reference to the body of international law. It is not an attempt to include an entire published work by that name into the constitution by reference. Quote[jcd11235] Again, you ignore the larger point that the founding fathers chose to use the term treaty in Article II instead of some nondescript description like "law of nations." Some of founding fathers knew of Vattel's work. It is absurd to believe that they used the title of a well known treatise on governance as a reference to international law while describing the powers of Congress. Do you really believe the Founding Fathers were so clumsy that they would make such an obvious mistake? Call me skeptical, but I believe they were more careful with their phrase selection. After re-reading the phrase "law of nations" in the context that it's used in the Constitution, and looking up/comparing it against Vattel's Law of Nations, I believe that Tom's interpretation of what the Framers of the Constitution meant when they drafted-in that phrase is the correct one. Vattel's work may very well have insinuated the term "law of nations" into then-pop culture as more-or-less synonymous with "accepted principles of civilized international law". But the Framers did not intend the use of that phrase to essentially "incorporate by reference" the entirety of Vattel's treatise into the Constitution; according to accepted principles of constitutional and statutory construction, if that's what the Framers had intended, they would have expressly said so. I disagree. T Founding fathers explicitly used the term treaties in Article II and Article VI. Had they meant that in Article I, they would have used that term there, instead of the title of a book on governance that they not only knew about. It is absurd to consider that they would make such a blunder. Reference a treatise by name, with proper capitalization, in proper context leaves little doubt that the Founding Fathers were referencing that treatise. Contextually, interpreting the Law of Nations as a reference to international law does not make sense, nor is it consistent with Article II's treatment of the President's authority with respect to treaties or Article VI's pronouncement that "all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land". Why would Congress need to define offenses against international law? If it's international law, and the United States are a party to the treaty from which the authority of the international law is derived, then the international law is the supreme law. It would be pointless for Congress to define the offense against international law, unless empowered to do so by the treaty.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #107 April 1, 2009 Your reasoning process isn't bad, but your result is wrong. I'll give you a C+ . Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #108 April 1, 2009 QuoteIt is absurd to believe that they used the title of a well known treatise on governance as a reference to international law while describing the powers of Congress. No, it's not. At that time, in the english language, the accepted term used to describe what today we call "international law" was "the law of nations." If they had used the term "International Law" I'm sure you would now be arguing that they had meant to incorporate, by reference, the entirety of this work.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #109 April 1, 2009 QuoteI disagree. T Founding fathers explicitly used the term treaties in Article II and Article VI. Had they meant that in Article I, they would have used that term there, instead of the title of a book on governance that they not only knew about. It is absurd to consider that they would make such a blunder. Are you asserting that the term "treaty" and the term "international law" are synonyms? Or that at the time of drafting, the founders viewed the terms "treaty" and "law of nations" (used generically) as synomyms? The reason the founders didn't use them interchangeably is because they have different meanings. Please note that if there is a book called "Different Meanings" it is in no way my intention to refer to it, much less to incorporate it's entirety, by reference, into this post.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #110 April 1, 2009 Quote No, it's not. At that time, in the english language, the accepted term used to describe what today we call "international law" was "the law of nations." Because they didn't understand what treaty meant, right? Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #111 April 1, 2009 Quote Your reasoning process isn't bad, but your result is wrong. I'll give you a C+ . I don't see how the result is wrong. TomAiello would have us believe that the framers did not mean what they stated explicitly, and instead expected us to use our necro-psychic powers to figure out that the Law of Nations referred to international law, since, obviously, the framers wouldn't discover the term treaty until the wrote Article II. I expect to see such tin-foil hatter interpretations of the Constitution on some libertarian websites. It's surprising to see someone like you, Andy9o8, argue such a position.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #112 April 1, 2009 QuoteHowever, making legal arguments while doped up on cough medicine is making my head ache even more, so I'm going to bed. You can keep to shallow arguments. Quade is transparent - while "his" party is in power, he considers that anything can be made into law - damn the constitution or the intent of the framers. 6 years ago, he was of the opposite opinion. In (any even number of) years from now, if things switch again, he'll change tunes again. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #113 April 1, 2009 QuoteAre you asserting that the term "treaty" and the term "international law" are synonyms? I would argue that the latter is a subset of the former. treaty noun (pl. -ties) a formally concluded and ratified agreement between countries. international law noun a body of rules established by custom or treaty and recognized by nations as binding in their relations with one another. Can you think of any examples of international law that are not derived from the authority of one or more treaties?Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #114 April 1, 2009 QuoteCan you think of any examples of international law that are not derived from the authority of one or more treaties? Um, did you actually read Vattel? If the one thing is a subset of the other, then it's clearly not a synonym. The drafters, being reasonably precise in their language, probably would not use a subset as a synonym.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #115 April 1, 2009 QuoteIf the one thing is a subset of the other, then it's clearly not a synonym. Not necessarily true. {1,2,3} is a subset of {1,2,3,4,5}. {1,2,3,4,5} is also a subset of {1,2,3,4,5}. A treaty can enumerate laws binding to all participating countries. QuoteThe drafters, being reasonably precise in their language, probably would not use a subset as a synonym. Being reasonably precise in their language, it is highly unlikely that the framers would use "the Law of Nations", written in a manner consistent with a proper noun, in a section where interpretation of the phrase as the proper title of Vattel's treatise is more consistent with the context of the section than an interpretation of the phrase as "international law". Furthermore, interpreting the phrase as a reference to international law, instead of the treatise of the same name, introduces unnecessary contradictions between Article I and Articles II & VI.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
piahenzi 0 #116 April 1, 2009 Get over it folks, we all have to pay our taxes and play by the rules I'm ok with that but it seems that some of our elected and appointed officials don't play by the rules, tax and otherwise, so what kind of message does that send?? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #117 April 1, 2009 Quote Quote Your reasoning process isn't bad, but your result is wrong. I'll give you a C+ . I don't see how the result is wrong. TomAiello would have us believe that the framers did not mean what they stated explicitly, and instead expected us to use our necro-psychic powers to figure out that the Law of Nations referred to international law, since, obviously, the framers wouldn't discover the term treaty until the wrote Article II. I expect to see such tin-foil hatter interpretations of the Constitution on some libertarian websites. It's surprising to see someone like you, Andy9o8, argue such a position. I stand by the reasoning in my Post #105, and it has nothing to do with the odd spin you use to characterize what either Tom or I have said about the phrase. You're now down to a D. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #118 April 1, 2009 QuoteAfter re-reading the phrase "law of nations" in the context that it's used in the Constitution, and looking up/comparing it against Vattel's Law of Nations, I believe that Tom's interpretation of what the Framers of the Constitution meant when they drafted-in that phrase is the correct one. Other Constitutional scholars disagree with you. Quote But the Framers did not intend the use of that phrase to essentially "incorporate by reference" the entirety of Vattel's treatise into the Constitution; according to accepted principles of constitutional and statutory construction, if that's what the Framers had intended, they would have expressly said so. Nice strawman. No one is claiming that the framers intended to "incorporate by reference" the entirety of Vattel's treatise. What they clearly and obviously intended was to give Congress the authority to pass legislation that would allow them (i.e. Congress) to implement and enforce the Law of Nations as they deemed necessary and proper. Further research on my part suggests that, not only were the framers familiar with Vattel's work, they also used it as a primary reference when they drafted the Constitution. Furthermore, I've encountered references to the SCOTUS referencing Vattel in some decisions. In other words, it is highly improbable that the framers used the title of Vattel's treatise without intending to reference that text.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #119 April 1, 2009 QuoteI stand by the reasoning in my Post #105, and it has nothing to do with the odd spin you use to characterize what either Tom or I have said about the phrase. Um, what reasoning was that? The "international law" interpretation has yet to be substantiated in any manner in this thread, not even post #105.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #120 April 1, 2009 Now you're just parsing dust in the wind. D-minus. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #121 April 1, 2009 Quote Now you're just parsing dust in the wind. D-minus. Your grading policy seems to be as arbitrary as your unsubstantiated interpretation of "the Law of Nations." Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #122 April 1, 2009 I think you'd better stop by my office in the morning. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #123 April 1, 2009 Quote Quote Now you're just parsing dust in the wind. D-minus. Your grading policy seems to be as arbitrary as your unsubstantiated interpretation of "the Law of Nations." He's using the same grading policy as any other professor would. Didn't we cover this before? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #124 April 1, 2009 Quote Quade is transparent - while "his" party is in power, he considers that anything can be made into law - damn the constitution or the intent of the framers. 6 years ago, he was of the opposite opinion. In (any even number of) years from now, if things switch again, he'll change tunes again. [sigh] No. There are quite a lot of things that are off limits. However, the way the Constitution is phrased leave a huge amount of leeway in what is allowed.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #125 April 1, 2009 Quote I think you'd better stop by my office in the morning. Why? Do you need further explanation? Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
