Defend Israel

The Patriots Call
The Black Robe Regiment - The Patriots Call

Democrats party of Racism
Racism of the Democrat Party
Herman Cain - The DNC has BRAINWASHED most of the Blacks of this Nation
Racism - the Nemesis of the Democrat Party
Democrats invented racism and democrats HATE all blacks
The Snooper Report articles on Democrat invention of racism

The March on DC
Callin’ All the Clans Together
Sick and tired - marching towards the Constitution of the United States
We. Are. Finished. With.  DC.
We. Are. Finished. With. DC. - Addendum Part 1

Civility: The Leftinistra Own None Of It
Civility: The Leftinistra Own None Of It Part 2(?)
Civility: Leftinistra Own None Part Three
Obama, Civility and The Clansmen of Dumb
Brain Dead Leftinistra: Their Stoic Civility
Libtards Have No Class - Civility Escapes Their Brain Deadness
The States Will Be the Next Battlefield in the Fight Over ObamaCare
War Is Coming: Blood On Our Own Streets - Thanks Democrats
Civil War…
We Are In The Midst of Chaos and Civil War
Live Free Or Die
Live Free Or Die Trying
State’s Sovereignty or Live Free Or Die
Live Free Or Die - The Movement Marches On
The Country Surrounds The City

When They Came
Is The Left Still “Proud To Be a Left-Wing Extremist”?
Be It Known - Attention Unconstitutional Congress
Obama: One Big Ass Mistake America
Do Birthers Rock and Roll or Stop and Drool?
Good vs Evil…It Is Your Choice
I Apologize For My Nation
Obama’s Civilian National Security Forces (CNSF)
Obama’s Brown Shirts - Civilian National Security Forces
What Is It About The American Liberal?
The Plan To Destroy America
Another Soldier Has Been Given the Haditha Treatment!
Callin’ All The Clans Together
Callin’ All The Clans Together Show
A History of the List of 45
Constitutionality: The Movement
Vindication: Iraq’s Saddam and Al Qaeda Links Revealed
Redefining The Center or the Moderate
The HIC (Hoax In Charge) Going To Copenhagen
We Didn’t Start This Goddamn War!

Copy Cat Frauds of the IAVA

Contract With America
Snooper’s Declaration of Independence
Thanks Obama

Contract From America

Timothy McVeigh
Thoughts To Ponder and Reflect Upon
Snooper Report Vindication: Al Qaeda, TWA Flight 800 and OKC Bombing
Clinton alludes to 1995 bombing, says words matter

Missing 13th Amendment
TITLES OF “NOBILITY” AND “HONOR” - The Missing 13th Amendment

The Coup
Military Coup Against Obama

The United States Constitution
Our founding document wasn’t set in stone for a reason

Deepwater Horizon
Did Hugo Chavez Sink the Deepwater Horizon Oil Platform?

The New Right

Arizona Rising

Texas Wars

Editor's Choice


Powered by Squarespace



Wake Up GOP

« Teleprompters can make you really smart | Main | EPIC FAILURE - Obama CRAPS on the United States Constitution »

Obama is NOT a Natural Born Citizen

I really do dislike ALL of the “Birthers” out there that have no idea what the Constitution is all about.

What is UP with the “Birthers” anyway? Get out your Constitutions. Get out ALL the SCOTUS reports on what a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN is. Get out Vatell’s Law of Nations (it is IN the Constitution) and STUDY!

The Snooper Report.
Join us as we Take Our Country Back.
Sic vis pacem para bellum
Fight Accordingly
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
(If you want peace, prepare for war.)
Sic Semper Tyrannis!
Death to Tyrants

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments (6)

Vattel's book THE Law of Nations is not in the Constitution. The words Law and Nations are capitalized, but the Constitution does a lot of capitalization for emphasis. For example: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty..." In this sentence "Blessings of Liberty" is capitalized, but not because it is a book.

Neither Vattel or his book THE Law of Nations is mentioned even once in the Federalist Papers, while the common law is mentioned about twenty times.

The key ruling on the meaning of Natural Born Citizen is the Wong Kim Ark ruling of the US Supreme Court (which BTW was after Minor v. Happersett), and it ruled that every child born in the USA, repeat EVERY CHILD, except for the children of foreign diplomats, is a Natural Born US Citizen.

June 15, 2013 | Unregistered Commentersmrstrauss

Perhaps, smrstrauss, should read Madison notes on the Constitution especially Sept 4th, 1787. Perhaps you should read ALL of Madison's notes. Then you will now that your kind are so wrong, you will go run and hide under the rocks that you live under.

Perhaps you should also read ALL the SCOTUS "reports" even in the 1800s.

Please. Don't be a doltish cad.


During the TIME that the Constitution was written, capitalized letters MEANT something.

George Washington and two others had in their possession Vattel's Law of Nations and that is what they USED to write our Constitution.

Get over it.

Obama is an ILLEGAL "president", as will be Marco Rubio, Jindell from LA and Ted Cruz. Get over it.

June 15, 2013 | Registered CommenterMark "Snooper" Harvey


It is "Rather" obvious, isn't it?


June 15, 2013 | Registered CommenterMark "Snooper" Harvey

The problem with Vattelites in their argument that the term Natural Born Citizen is founded on Roman or Civil Law instead of English Common Law is that their argument demonstrate their ignorance that the Constitution provisions were framed in the language of the English Common Law and their argument ignore the historical development of Anglo-American jurisprudence that is rooted in the English Common Law.

Courts have recognized that the drafters of the constitution of whom most were lawyers were influenced by the principles and history of the common law that we inherited from the English. “The principles and history of the common law were well known to the framers of the Constitution and the members of the First Congress; it was from that system that their terminology was derived; and the provisions of the Constitution and contemporaneous legislation must be interpreted accordingly.” Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen, 244 US 205, 230 (1917) (Pitney, J. dissenting); See also Smith v. Alabama, 124 U. S. 465, 478 (1888) (“The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.”)

Likewise, Chief Justice, Holmes in Gompers v. United States, 233 US 604 (1914) noted that courts must considered to common law origin of the provisions of the Constitution when he observed: “[T]the provisions of the Constitution are not mathematical formulas having their essence in their form; they are organic living institutions transplanted from English soil. Their significance is vital not formal; it is to be gathered not simply by taking the words and a dictionary, but by considering their origin and the line of their growth.” Id at 610

Moreover, Chief Justice Taft stated in Ex Parte Grossman, 267 U.S. 76, 108-09 (1925): “The language of the Constitution cannot be interpreted safely except by reference to the common law and British institutions as they were when the instrument was framed and adopted.”

Since the drafters of the Constitution wrote it in the language of the English common law then according to statutory construction that unless otherwise defined in the Constitution, words are to be taken at their ordinary and contemporary meaning. “ A fundamental canon of statutory construction is that, unless otherwise defined, words will be interpreted as taking their ordinary, contemporary, common meaning.” Perrin v. United States, 444 US 37,42 (1979).

Moreover, if the use of words in the Constitution have a common law meaning
then the courts must infer the incorporation of this common law meaning unless the language of the Constitution compels a different meaning.” [G]uided by the principle that where words are employed in a statute which had at the time a well-known meaning at common law or in the law of this country they are presumed to have been used in that sense unless the context compels to the contrary.” Standard Oil Co. of NJ v. United Sates, 221 US 1, 59 (1911); Neder v. United States, 527 US 1, 21 (1999) (It is a well-established rule of construction that "`[w]here Congress uses terms that have accumulated settled meaning under . . . the common law, a court must infer, unless the statute otherwise dictates, that Congress means to incorporate the established meaning of these terms.') (internal citations omitted)

Furthermore, if words were created not by positive law but rather by judicially created concept then any interpretation of those words other than their common law meaning must be specific and clear. "The normal rule of statutory construction is that if Congress intends for legislation to change the interpretation of a judicially created concept, it makes that intent specific." Stillians v. Iowa, 843 F.2d 276, 280 (8th Cir.1988) (quoting Midlantic Nat'l Bank v. New Jersey Dep't of Envtl. Protection, 474 U.S. 494, 106 S.Ct. 755, 88 L.Ed.2d 859 (1986)). Thus, it is proper to consider that Congress acts with knowledge of existing law, and that "absent a clear manifestation of contrary intent, a newly-enacted or revised statute is presumed to be harmonious with existing law and its judicial construction." Johnson v. First Nat'l Bank of Montevideo, 719 F.2d 270, 277 (8th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1012, 104 S.Ct. 1015, 79 L.Ed.2d 245 (1984). Estate of Wood v. CIR, 909 F. 2d 1155,1160 (8th Cir. 1990)

In other words, If drafters of the Constitution used words in the Constitution that have a common law meaning then it is PRESUMED that drafters intended common law application of the words UNLESS there is language in the Constitution that intended a contrary interpretation of the words.

As such, the term natural born citizen is a derivation of the term natural born subject that was a judicially created concept as articulated by Blackstone in his Commentaries of the Laws of England (1765) then UNLESS the founding fathers intended a different meaning other than the common law rule meaning of natural born citizen it was the responsibility of drafters to incorporate this different meaning.

The failure of the drafters to indicate a different meaning other than the common law meaning of natural born citizen in the Constitution demonstrated that the drafters intended to incorporate the established common law meaning of natural born citizen.

July 12, 2013 | Unregistered CommenterAtticus Finch

It is so nice to see that people look up the most insignificant TRASH that supports their own stupidity.

The BIG problem is this - NO ONE has ever read Madison's Notes ON the Constitution where many times, in Madison Notes, Vattel's Law of Nations was referred to AND adopted into the Constitution and there were no Framers and/or writers of the Constitution that ever said that British Common Law was the "thing to do" seeing that we had just FINISHED a War with England OVER Common Law.

What I find very interesting is how stupid cranks are in this Nation that seem to think that MANKIND can override the Law of the Land which IS the Constitution of the United States, period.

Carry on.

PS ALWAYS remember what happened in 1871. Thanks.

July 13, 2013 | Registered CommenterMark "Snooper" Harvey

PS #2 whatever... Senator Cruz is NOT a Natural Born Citizen. Marco Rubio is NOT a Natural Born Citizen. Bobby Jindal is NOT a Natural Born Citizen.

Remember this when they come up for grabs in the next political skullduggery soon to be upon us when you Leftinistra starts WHINING about the "Natural Born Status" issue(s).

July 13, 2013 | Registered CommenterMark "Snooper" Harvey

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>