Do Birthers Rock and Roll or Stop and Drool?
Tue, February 9, 2010 at 9:44 
The Snooper Report has written many articles on Barack Hussein Obama's birth certificate, the United States Constitution and Obama's natural-born status and what all of it means. I don't care if Obama spent some time in Indonesia. I don't care if Obama was born an an Atoll in the middle of East Bedidguwits on a stormy or a sunny day. I don't even care if he was born in Hawaii. None of that means anything to me. What I do care about is the United States Constitution. Period.
Some people will comment on this article as if they do know something about the United States Constitution and will tell me that Common Law says this that or the other and that doesn't fly with me because "case law" and "precedent law" means nothing to me because both are contrary to the United States Constitution. Period.
Some people will comment on this article as if they do know something about the United States Constitution and will tell me that "natural-born" equates to being born in the United States which is exactly the opposite of what it really means.
Some people will comment on this article as if they do know something about something and will say all manner of silligisms that mean absolutely nothing when compared to the United States Constitution. So, before you all make a comment which will get you called all those "evil names", just shut up and go away.
So, do you know the United States Constitution? Does Confederate Yankee? Does Hot Air? Does Michelle Malkin? Do the Senators know the USC? Does anyone in the House know the USC? No, they do not. Does Obama know the USC? No, he doesn't unless it doesn't go far enough. Now the Confederate Yankee, Hot Air and Michelle Malkin and a host of other "conservatives" haven't taken the Oath of Service but the Senators, House Members and the alleged "president" have taken the Oath and have lied their rear ends off just to call themselves what they call themselves - YOUR Leaders. They aren't "leaders". They are "servants". End of that story.
Let us begin here. In the original Constitution capitalized letters mean something. In today's Constitution, in those little pocket type units, capitalized letters are gone. I always thought that was OK and then I learned later on that all that is OK if the reader knows what the original has stated before. The original Constitution currently "lives" in a vacuum box, sealed from the elements and cannot breath so the "living and breathing" document as some people call the Constitution cannot live or breath. The only life and breath of the USC is if one Amends the document which is Constitutional.
In Article 1, Section 8, where the "laws of what the Congress is Constitutionally obligated to do", we read the following...(capital letters emboldened by me)
[...] To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations; [...]
What do the capitalized letters mean or is it just some bunch of old white men making no sense? If you must, you can read all about it in Madison's notes but the obvious even to the oblivious will know that capitalized letters do in fact mean something.
In today's Constitution, the kind one would place in their pockets, Article 1, Section 8 reads this way:
[...] To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the law of nations; [...]
Now, unless you are reading the Heritage Foundations little pocket guide, why in the world would Law of Nations not be capitalized? Why? This is because that whoever decided to turn the United States Constitution into some morphed identity of dumb or because the ones doing the deed didn't know what a capitalized letter meant, the document that most people have will not have Law of Nations capitalized. Ever. So, what does the Law of Nations mean? It means quite a bit.
The Founding Fathers were very smart and highly educated. Did they know how to get to the moon? No but that doesn't matter, does it? They spoke many languages and were well versed in the governments of the day and they were also concerned about the New Government about to begin and where it was going to go. They also had three books called the Law of Nations written by Vattal, a Frenchman. Out of many items in the volumes, this is said about "natural-born" citizenship...
This citation below is From Jadem in an article here: The Tenuous and Evervescent Obama Birth Certificate
"t/The Law of Nations
Book 1, Chap 19, § 212. Citizens and natives.
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. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights....
First edition was in 1759. And how could Ben Franklin have thanked Charles W.F. Dumas for giving him a translation of the Law of Nations in 1775? Stating in his thank you letter:
"I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly, that copy which I kept, has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting ...."
Also other Founders of the U.S. ALSO quoted and referred to Vattel many times over before the Constitution was drafted. Which means either they could read it in the original language, or it was translated BEFORE the time that YOU state."
Jadem was answering the usual libtard that either hates the United States Constitution or is definitely unread in it. Some will get upset that I said that but, that's just the way it is. Educate yourself in the United States Constitution because that is all we have. Our Congress Critters hate the document so badly that they use the SCOTUS and other federal judges to circumvent the document and to legislate around the document which, by the way, is unconstitutional to do so. That is in the Constitution that they all swear to uphold, defend and protect. Kind of odd, isn't it? I swore the Oath years ago and it it stands with me now, today, and forever.
As I have said before, I am a Birther but I suppose that I am not. I don't care where, when or who Obama was born. All I care about is if Obama has TWO American citizens and if he does have TWO American citizens as parents, than Obama is a "natural-born" citizen. Don't know if this is true? Read Madison's notes on the Constitution.
As far as I can tell, Obama is not a natural-born American citizen and this is why Obama has not presented his birth certificate for all to see. It is theoretically locked up some place in Hawaii unseen by anyone except libtards that have said they saw it...after it was locked up. Hot Air says so. Confederate Yankee says so. Michelle Malkin says so. Why? They think the issue is closed and it is not closed. It is only closed when one is too afraid to ask the Truth.
If Obama has TWO American parents, he passes muster. Until he shows it, the birth certificate, he is an unknown and could have proved it when he himself was in on McCain's "issue".
I have written on tis subject like I have so stated:
See these posts: I'M A BIRTHER! - Does The Illegal Alien Barack Have A Birth Certificate? (is Barack an illegal alien? no one knows) - The Ever Evasive and Mysterious Soetoro Birth Certificate - The Obama AWOL Birth Certificate Update - Birth Certificate The Illegal Alien's (Barack Obama) AWOL - Can We See Soetoro's Birth Certificate Yet? -
...and I would like to add this section about McCain v Obama...
[...] He could have very well ended all discussions of his natural-born status when John McCain's was ended but he did not. Perhaps because he could not and cannot still.
In April of 2008, Senator McCain's "natural born" citizen status was settled by Senate Resolution 511. I thought it peculiar that Patrick Leahy would make the comment that the term "natural born citizen" was not defined in the Constitution when it clearly is defined. One doesn't need to be a rocket scientist to detect the Constitutional definition when the definition is clearly stated in the Constitution. There is other verbiage in the Resolution that is equally suspect.
[...] Whereas previous presidential candidates were born outside of the United States of America and were understood to be eligible to be President; [...]
This statement was added to the Resolution by none other than Barack Hussein Obama. Why?
In the process of my self-admonitions of following for a well crafted scam, I ran across this post recently after Pamela Geller rocked my world back in July.
[...] From Obama own website:Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor
sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship
automatically expired on Aug. 4,1982.”Question?
How could it expire, if he never had it? [END]
Indeed. My learning and my cravings for knowledge will never end on this subject. In the linked post, I learned several other items of interest and I do believe that honest people will also see the light, as it were. Naturally, the apologists that can never admit to being in error will claim high and mighty blissful ignorance. [...]
There's more...
[...] During the campaign for either the presidency of the United States on one side of the aisle and the campaign for the First Czar of the Disunited Soviet Socialist States of KKK-A on the other side of the aisle, the topic of natural-born status for Obama arose and the Obama Goon Squads rose to the occasion. What did they do? They questioned McCain's natural-born status.
What did McCain do? He produced his papers and what came of it? In April of 2008, Senator McCain's "natural born" citizen status was settled by Senate Resolution 511. Soon thereafter, the cowards of the GOP did not press Obama to produce his papers and accused everyone that questioned Obama's natural-born status as racists or other inane name-calling.
Why wasn't there a Senate Resolution for Obama? Why does he get a free pass? Obama, does not meet the Constitutional requirements, that's why. Until the Imam of Obama proves his bona fides, he is the Usurper, the Liar in Chief and the Fraud in Chief and I will not recognize his authority or the authority of his illegal and unconstitutional administration, comprised of lobbyists Obama said he wouldn't have, tax cheats, crooks and liars. I will also not recognize the authority of the United States Congress whether it be the House of Unconstitutional Unrepresentatives or the Unconstitutional Senate that has unconstitutionally confirmed unconstitutional secretaries of the Interior and State. [...]
So, Obama, where is the birth certificate? I know he has one. And I know he can show it. And I know that he will not because he doesn't have TWO American citizens as parents. Period. End of discussion.
The Snooper Report.
Join us as we Take Our Country Back.
Sic vis pacem para bellum
Fight Accordingly
Mark "Snooper" Harvey
Media Liberals Paint Conservatives as 'Birthers', But First Birthers Were Dems
Here's something you won't hear from the liberal media: that whole "birther" conspiracy movement? Yeah, that was started by a couple of Democrats, and neither is named Orly Taitz. [...]
Mark "Snooper" Harvey
“The common law of England is not the common law of these States.” —George Mason
What might the phrase “natural-born citizen” of the United States imply under the U.S. Constitution? The phrase has always been obscure due to the lack of any single authoritative source to confer in order to understand the condition of citizenship the phrase recognizes. Learning what the phrase might have meant following the Declaration of Independence, and the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, requires detective work. As with all detective work, eliminating the usual suspects from the beginning goes a long way in quickly solving a case.
What Natural-Born Citizen Could Not Mean
Could a natural-born citizen simply mean citizenship due to place of birth?
Unlikely in the strict sense because we know one can be native born and yet not a native born citizen of this country. There were even disputes whether anyone born within the District of Columbia or in the territories were born citizens of the United States (they were generally referred to as “inhabitants” instead.) National Government could make no “territorial allegiance” demands within the several States because as Madison explained it, the “powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.”
Jurisdiction over citizenship via birth within the several States was part of the “ordinary course of affairs” of the States that only local laws could affect. Early acts of Naturalization recognized the individual State Legislatures as the only authority who could make anyone a citizen of a State. Framer James Wilson said, “a citizen of the United States is he, who is a citizen of at least some one state in the Union.” These citizens of each State were united together through Article IV, Sec. II of the U.S. Constitution, and thus, no act of Congress was required to make citizens of the individual States citizens of the United States.
Prior to the Revolutionary War place of birth within the dominions of the crown was the principle criterion for establishing perpetual allegiance and citizenship. After independence each State was free to establish their own maxims on the subject. James Madison’s own State of Virginia adopted a birthright law authored by Thomas Jefferson in 1779 that recognized parentage (citizenship of father) in determining citizenship of the child:
[A]ll infants, wheresoever born, whose father, if living, or otherwise, whose mother was a citizen at the time of their birth, or who migrate hither, their father, if living, or otherwise, their mother becoming a citizen, or who migrate hither without father or mother, shall be deemed citizens of this Commonwealth until they relinquish that character, in manner as hereinafter expressed; and all others not being citizens of any, of the United States of America, shall be deemed aliens.
Some States made citizenship conditional on either parent in terms of their citizenship, such as Kentucky: “[E]very child, wherever born, whose father or mother was or shall be a citizen of Kentucky at the birth of such child, shall be deemed citizens of that State.” One common law found in a number of States that defined those born as citizens read, “All persons born in this state, and resident within it, except the children of transient aliens, and of alien public ministers and consuls, etc.” [...] Go read the rest
Mark "Snooper" Harvey
From Jadem via DM and text:
jdmeac another GOOD article to add: http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/09/natural-born-citizen-clause-requires.html
Just in case "someone" wants to discuss "court cases", here you go. I have the first two paragraphs of the entire article here: (I removed an original text as a link and placed it into the Scalia verbiage)
When interpreting the Constitution, we must decide whether we will look to the document as an original and static one whose meaning has already been established at a given time by the People and its Framers or one that is living and which can be changed over any given time by a court of law. See the address of Justice Antonin Scalia to the 2008 Annual National Lawyers Convention on November 22, 2008, at the Mayflower Hotel, in Washington, D.C. (advocates originalism rather than living constitutionalism). I submit that Article II’s “natural born Citizen” clause has a fixed and knowable meaning which was established at the time of its drafting and should therefore be interpreted through the eyes of the original Framers that drafted and ratified the clause so as to determine what they intended the clause to mean (original intent theory). I also submit that we should interpret the “natural born Citizen” clause in a way that reasonable persons living at the time of its adoption would have declared the ordinary meaning of the text to be (original meaning theory). This is not living constitutionalism but rather originalism or textualism as applied to interpreting the Constitution. It is this latter approach that I will utilize in this article.
E. Vattel stated in 1758, as translated into English in 1797 : "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. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see, whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country." E. Vattel, The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law, Sec. 212 Citizens and natives. In Footnote 1 at the end of Sec. 212, Vattel stated that “as a general rule” the child inherits his father’s citizenship, or his mother’s but only if she is not married. [...]
Many people cannot believe that Obama has no American daddy but as I have said from the very beginning of this Obama unconstitutional "rezident", he ain't no natural born anything but a damned natural born LIAR.
Mark "Snooper" Harvey
From Jadem: The REAL birther question
Dan Riehl, the GOP apologist, perhaps a "conservative" but I doubt it has this to say: Oh Geez: Fifty Percent Of AZ Legislature Are Birthers - that right there strikes a blow against his cfredibility about anything and living too close to DC has rattled his brain cells.
He doesn't know about Vattal's Law of Nations. Why? Because he doesn't know the US Constitution like he says he does.
All people want to do is to have someone PROVE they are natural-born because the unconstitutional SCOTUS will not. Just look what happened to the Governor of Michigan now...she has DUAL citizenship so she is now qualified to be POTUS? I wonder how Dan would react to that.
Reader Comments (31)
Vattel's book's name is translated as The Law of Nations. The "The" is capitalized, but in the Constitution it isn't.
That is one proof that they were not referring to a specific book. What would be an offense against that book? Well, it recommends such things as a state religion, so presumably not having a state religion would be an offense.
One thing that Vattel's book does not recommend is electing anyone (Vattel was a monarchist), and it does not say that the leader of a country should be a citizen (much less a two-parent citizen). Vattel gives several examples of countries picking their sovereigns from the nobility of other countries, and he never says that that is a bad thing.
The practice of capitalization in the Constituiton was a bit different from today's rules. It often capitalized words for emphasis. For example, it reads:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, secure the Blessings of Liberty..."
Such words as People and Tranquility are capitalized for emphasis. So, when discussing the Law of Nations, the writers of the Constitution were stressing that the concept of a Law of Nations was important. In the section of the Constitution you refer to, Congess is allowed to write laws that apply the standards of international law, the Law of Nations, to laws of piracy and crimes aat sea.
At the time Natural Born simply meant "born in the country."
Pathetic. I figured you would come by and fulfill the notice above about not knowing the Constitution.
Spin it all you like. You are wrong and Obama doesn't even come close to becoming an American President.
We won the election and now these sore losers will continue to spew your hate with lies. The way our courts work is that you get a competent lawyer, verifiable facts and present them to a judge, if the facts are real and not half baked lies, then, and only then, you proceed to trial. The Birthers seem to be having a problem with their so called facts that they present. Let’s face it no one will go along with you until you guys win a case, but until then, you will continue to appear dumb, crazy or racist, or maybe all three. Keep plucking that chicken.
Re "Pathetic." Why not discuss the facts and the law. The words used "Natural Born Citizen" were used commonly by the writers of the Constitution to mean a citizen who was born in the country. They did not use them to mean a "two parent plus birth in the country" citizen. If they had meant that, they would have said it. In their writings in other articles, they use Natural Born just the way that it is used in the common law and the laws of the early states. The meaning was simply "born in the country."
Poor Montana. Thanks for fulfilling the article. Dumbass. By the way, asshole, I am not a Birther. jerk.
And no, smstrauss - you will continue to be wrong on all levels and "born in the country" comes from the 14th Amendment and not Vattal's Law of Nations. Idiot.
Amen, Amen, Amen...way to go Mark!
To the Birthers, prove it, Oh thats right you can’t, just more of your unsubstantiated rumors you keep writing on your hands to help you keep up. You are just another Palin, just like “W”, just like Quayle, just like Reagan. I love you guys. Keep plucking that chicken.
The term Natural Born was used at the time of the writing of the Constitution ONLY to mean "born in the country." In dozens of quotations by such leaders as Adams and Hamilton, it is used only to mean born in the country. It was never used to mean "born in the country with two citizen parents."
Thanks Jenn!
Montana...thanks for proving the point in the article. Idiot.
smrstrauss...keep digging butt head.
Thank you Snooper! Excellent!
Thanks Wanda!
Why not discuss the facts and the law. It will convince more people than calling names. Calling names just makes people think that you are rude.
The meaning of Natural Born, as clearly shown in the Wong Kim Ark case, was originally Born in the Country. That is why we have the word Naturalize, which means to make someone who was not born in the country like someone who was born in the country. All citizens who were born in the USA, citizens due to their place of birth, are Natural Born Citizens.
The meaning of Natural Born does not come from Vattel, a Swiss monarchist who never recommended elections nor recommended that leaders of a country be citizens. It comes from the common law and the laws at the time of the writing of the Constitution, and the meaning of Natural Born at that time was simply "born in the country."
Who gives a shit about some retarded court case. Look into the Constitution, read Madison's Notes on the Constitution and discover it all yourself instead of relying on some retarded court case. Idiot.
We are not under Common Law no matter the court case because we fought a war over Common Law and the Nation refused to have it. It's in the Constitution.
Why are you such an effete futz anyway?
Natural Born is in relation to parentage, not the place you were born. Both parents citizens = natural born citizen. One parent citizen & one parent foreigner = dual citizen or citizen. Parents not citizens = not a citizen until naturalized.
So would Bobby Jindall be a natural born citizen or a naturalized citizen? His parents were citizens of India at the time of his birth.
I was born in a foreign country to American citizen parents. Would that make me a citizen of the country I was born in, or a citizen of the country of my parents?
Re: "read Madison's Notes on the Constitution."
I did. He never says that a Natural Born Citizen must have two citizen parents. But he did say, in a speech to Congress a few years later:
"It is an established maxim, that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general, place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States."
As you can see, there is only one criterion of allegiance to Madison, the place of birth.
Hamiliton wrote: "The position is founded on that clause of the British act of navigation, which forbids any but a natural-born or naturalized subject to exercise the occupation of a merchant or factor, in any of the British dominions in Asia, Africa, and America."
As you can see, he uses only two categories. There are only Natural Born and Naturalized subjects, not Natural Born (two parent), native born, and naturalized. Only two categories means Natural Born means "born in the country."
John Adams wrote: "And whosoever is born within the fee of the King of England, though it be in another kingdom, is a natural-born subject, and capable and inheritable of lands in England, as it appeareth in Plow. Com. 126. And, therefore, those that were born in Wales before 12 Edward I., whilst it was only holden of England, were capable and inheritable of lands in England.”
That meant that anyone born in the fee of the king was Natural Born, not only those with two parents were Natural Born. ANYONE. Or, as the Wong Kim Ark case put it: "every child."
And Wilson, another writer of the Constitution and later a member of the Supreme Court wrote: "Natural born subjects have a great variety of rights, which they acquire by being born in the king’s ligeance, and can never forfeit by any distance of place or time, but only by their own misbehaviour; the explanation of which rights is the principal subject of the law."
As you can see, he says that only birth in the country creates the rights of Natural Born Subjects.
In 1777 a committee of the Continental Congress of which Jefferson, Sherman, Gerry and some others were members, sent this letter to the US legation in France. That the following resolution had passed the Congress:
"Resolved, that it is inconsistent with the interests of the United States to appoint anyone, not a natural born citizen thereof, to the office of minister, charge d’affaires, consul, vice-consul, or to any other civil department in a foreign country, and that a copy of this resolve be sent to Messrs. Adams, Franklin and Jay, ministers of the said states in Europe."
This shows two things that the American leaders considered that Natural Born Citizens of the United States existed in 1777, and that Natural Born referred only to the place of birth. If they had meant Natural Born to mean "two parents plus place of birth" they would have specified. That is because it was easy for the people they wrote to to determine the place of birth of someone that they hired, and much more difficult to determine the citizenship of the parents of that person.
In short, Madison and all the other AMERICAN leaders at the time used the term Natural Born as it was used in the common law and the laws in the early states, and that meant "born in the country" (with the exception of the children of foreign diplomats).
And there you go with COMMON LAW which we do not have. Give it up. The Law of Nations was utilized. You know it. I know it. They knew it. Obama doesn't because he is a marxist-sociopath an d the Constitution means nothing to him...or you.
Stop confusing the libtard Jadem. LOL
Re: "The Law of Nations was utilized. "
There is absolutely no evidence of this. Vattel, who wrote The Law of Nations, was a Swiss monarchist, who never recommended elections, and who did not require the leaders of countries (who were always kings and emperors) to be citizens, much less two-parent-citizen citizens. He also recommends a state religion for every country.
The writers of the Constitution did not say "two citizen parents are necessary," and they did not say "Natural Born as in Vattel." They simply said Natural Born, and the common use of Natural Born at the time was "born in the country." There are many quotations by the AMERICAN leaders at the time that used the phrase Natural Born to mean birth in the country, and there are no quotations from American leaders at the time of the writing of the Constitution that used the phrase Natural Born to mean two citizen parents.
There's all kinds of evidence you moron. Idiot. Go piss up a rope.
If it was simply born in the country, then wouldn't they have used just citizen instead of 'natural born citizen'?
Yes, it would. Simple things confound the stupid.
If it was simply born in the country, then wouldn't they have used just citizen instead of 'natural born citizen'?
You should know better than that. If they had just said "citizen," that would have included naturalized citizens. The worlds Natural Born Citizen excludes naturalized citizens.
But it does not exclude the US-born children of foreigners.
Thanks for proving the point above.
Naturalized US citizens are barred from being president because they are not Natural Born. All children born in the USA are natural born.
That is why such prominent conservative Senators who are also lawyers as Orren Hatch and Lindsay Graham say that a Natural Born Citizen is simply one who was born in the USA:
Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), said:
“Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.” (December 11, 2008 letter to constituent)
Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), said:
“What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004
The Wall Street Journal put it this way:
"Some birthers imagine that there is a difference between being a “citizen by birth” or a “native citizen” on the one hand and a “natural born” citizen on the other. “Eccentric” is too kind a word for this notion, which is either daft or dishonest. All three terms are identical in meaning."
Who gives a crap what a Democrat In Drag says you moron. And how many times are you going to place the same libtarded words in your comments? They do not work here and neither do you.
http://www.ObamaReleaseYourRecords.com
http://www.BirtherReport.com
probably a sovereign too with this capitalization nonsense.
Get a real job.