Ann Coulter: No Problem With Obama's Birth Certificate

breitbart.tv ^ | July 28, 2009 | Fox News

[joeu01]

Ann Coulter agrees with Rivera and Huck(ster)abee that Obama's birth certificate is not issue. Says "the issue was dealt with". These so-called "conservative leaders" Coulter and Huckabee are way behind the curve....

Video: http://www.breitbart.tv/ann-coulter-birthers-are-wrong/

[Star Traveler]

Hmmmm..., gets me to thinking... I’m only about two miles from the hospital where I was born, and also only a few miles (3 or so) from where my parents lived at the time. (but I haven’t always been around here... most of my previous years I was about 2,000 miles away from here...).

[MHGinTN]

What do you think of El Gato's comments on Ark?

[RummyChick]

Wong is a long and complicated case found in favor of Wong.

The quote that the poster listed was from a pamphlet printed in Philadelphia page 22 note. The Justice then writes that it was published without the Author’s name, and WITHOUT THAT QUOTE - in the American Law Register.

He then immediately discusses what counsel for the US claims which was this

“It was contended by one of the learned counsel for the United States that the rule of the Roman law, by which the citizenship of the child followed that of the parent, was the true rule of international law as now recognized in most civilized countries, and had superseded the rule of the common law, depending on birth within the realm, originally founded on feudal considerations.

But at the time of the adoption of the constitution of the United States in 1789......”

Etc.

He is quoting a PAMPHLET in the overall discussion of the case - one that was probably brought up the the Government. It is an overall discussion..and a belief, IN MY OPINION..he did not follow.

Case found in favor of Wong.

[MHGinTN]

ping

[MHGinTN]

The case was not defining Wong as a natural born citizen, it was decided in his favor that he was a citizen, not naturalized citizen. Is that correct?

[RummyChick]

Read the conclusion and the comments at the site you linked to me and form your opinion.

Mine is...SCOTUS will have to look to that case if a case against Obama makes it that far. You can bet Obama will be bringing it up.

You may not agree with the case. You may find plenty of faulty reasonings in that case. There may be all kinds of problems with that case.

But it is the law courts have to look at when cases are before them.

SCOTUS would have to reverse it.

That is my opinion.

[MHGinTN]

From http://federalistblog.us/2006/12/us_v_wong_kim_ark_can_never_be_considered.html ... italicized portions are my personal comments:

There is a misconception floating around that suggests the ruling in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark is the definite guiding rule of interpretation over the Fourteenth Amendment’s citizenship clause. Worst, some even go as far to suggest Wong Kim Ark is settled law. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Reading the majorities opinion in Kim Ark, one can’t help but wonder why so much emphasis is being placed on such obscure and irrelevant historical overviews as colonial and foreign law. With two previous established court decisions that substantially covered the same ground regarding the meaning and application of the words found under the fourteenth amendments citizenship clause, leaves one to wonder what is going on here? [The Elg case is one, offered thoughts on that one below]

Deeper into the decision, justice Horace Gray (writing for the majority) reveals exactly what the majority is up to: They are attempting to avoid discussion over the construction of the clause by the two Senators whom are most responsible for its language found in the Constitution, Jacob M. Howard and Lyman Trumbull.

It is clear the Wong Kim Ark majority recognized the only viable approach to the conclusion they sought was to somehow distant themselves from the recorded history left behind by the citizenship clause framers. Justice Gray [ Gray was appointed by Arthur to perhaps establish a sort of credibility for Arthur's ineligibility when he ascended the office of President. Some see an inveigling of the 14th amendment and 1795 Naturalization Act in the wording.] made no attempt to hide this fact when he wrote: “Doubtless, the intention of the congress which framed, and of the states which adopted, this amendment of the constitution, must be sought in the words of the amendment, and the debates in congress are not admissible as evidence to control the meaning of those words.”

Whatever credibility the court may had at the beginning was soon lost when Gray wrote:

The words “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” in the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution must be presumed to have been understood and intended by the Congress which proposed the Amendment … as the equivalent of the words “within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States…” Here the court is presuming what Congress may have intended while at the same time arguing the written debates that could easily disclose this intent is inadmissible as evidence. This has to be one of the most incompetent and feeble rulings ever handed down by the Supreme Court. [And the reason Wong Kim Ark is not settled law.]

Justice John Paul Stevens would take issue with this inept attempt by the majority to rewrite the Constitution: “A refusal to consider reliable evidence of original intent in the Constitution is no more excusable than a judge’s refusal to consider legislative intent.”

Moreover, if Justice Gray was really being honest with his assertion that the “intention” of Congress lies in the amendments words alone; why then did the court fail to observe that persons naturalized were also required to be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States? Gray writing for the majority in Elk v. Wilkins observed these “words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other.”

Therefore, any court would have been forced to conclude by words alone that the clause requires not only not owing allegiance to another nation but also in return owing allegiance to this nation in advance - just as required to become a naturalized citizen. In other words, the condition of being “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States equally applies to all persons whether born or naturalized and this jurisdiction includes political attachment (Elk v. Wilkins) and not simply geographical location.

. . .

Lyman Trumbull presents an insurmountable barrier of his own by declaring: “The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.”

Sen. Howard follows up by stating that: “the word ‘jurisdiction,’ as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, coextensive in all respects with the constitutional power of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now.”

. . .

When all was said and done, the majority in Wong Kim Ark reveals their true nonsensical position: “To hold that the Fourteenth Amendment of the constitution excludes from citizenship the children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of other countries, would be to deny citizenship to thousands of persons of English, Scotch, Irish, German, or other European parentage, who have always been considered and treated as citizens of the United States.”

Well now, the issue was not citizenship being withheld on account of the 14th Amendment to American citizens, and had the court bothered to consider the history of the amendment, they would have easily discovered it was all about granting citizenship as established by the jurisdiction which the United States already has over the parents of the child. The idea of withholding citizenship upon birth to subjects of other countries who owed this country no direct allegiance was, well, the desired result of declaring who is, and who isn’t, a citizen of the United States.

. . .

NOTE: The Wong Kim Ark ruling left undisturbed the uniform judicial doctrine since 1885 that said when residence is permanent the child born here of permanent residents should be considered a citizen of the United States. Although not a constitutional controversy under the words or interpretation the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment provided, current federal judicial understanding could be said unsettled under Wong Kim Ark in terms of temporary or illegal residents.

[RummyChick]

Why don’t you write that blogger and ask him if SCOTUS WILL HAVE TO LOOK AT THE CASE AND RULE ONE WAY OR ANOTHER ON IT if Obama’s case makes it to them.

Tell me what he says.

The answer from him should be YES.

[MHGinTN]

Though the Elg case came before Wong Kim Ark, it is quite relvent to the issue of means to define citizenship. Note that both native born and natural born are written in the discussion, but in the ruling handed down natural born is not offered by the court's ruling.

The only place in the Elg decision where natural born is cited is the following as mentioned from a lower court ruling which the SCOTUS neither affirmed nor used in their ruling:

[[ Fifth. The cross-petition of Miss Elg, upon which certiorari was granted in No. 455, is addressed to the part of the decree below which dismissed the bill of complaint as against the Secretary of State. The dismissal was upon the ground that the court would not undertake by mandamus to compel the issuance of a passport or control by means of a declaratory judgment the discretion of the Secretary of State. But the Secretary of State, according to the allegation of the bill of complaint, had refused to issue a passport to Miss Elg "solely on the ground that she had lost her native born American citizenship." The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants

Page 307 U. S. 350

(Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U. S. 227), declared Miss Elg "to be a natural born citizen of the United States," and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. The decree in that sense would in no way interfere with the exercise of the Secretary's discretion with respect to the issue of a passport, but would simply preclude the denial of a passport on the sole ground that Miss Elg had lost her American citizenship. ]]

You can see that the SCOTUS was not declaring Elg to be a natural born citizen, even stating in the SCOTUS ruling that the lower court had made that ruling but the SCOTUS would rule only that she had not lost her American citizenship.

[MHGinTN]

The writer has affirmed previously that the SCOTUS will have to rule on the definition of natural born citizenship, if a case ever makes it to the court for review. Wong did not settle the issue by any means.

[Know et al]

When Obama was reluctant to release the BC, it was about the BC. Now, it is about what he is hiding. He may be as American as apple pie but now I want to know what he is hiding.

It's documented. Someone just has to find where.

[BP2]

The guiding case right now is Wong -unless you can find another.

No, Wong is not the guiding light — that would be the Minor v. Happersett case that is referenced in US v Wong in regards to natural born citizen.

Keeping in mind that the 14th Amendment was ratified in July 9, 1868, Minor v. Happersett had reference to all 3 of the Reconstruction Amendments when it was ruled upon in 1874. Here are some relevant portions mentioned in US v. Wong about Minor v Happersett:

The constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words [natural-born citizen], either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except in so far as this is done by the affirmative declaration that ‘all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.’ Amend. art. 14. In this, as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the constitution. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162; Ex parte Wilson, 114 U. S. 417, 422, 5 Sup. Ct. 935; Boyd v. U. S., 116 U. S. 616, 624, 625, 6 Sup. Ct. 524; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U. S. 465, 8 Sup. Ct. 564. The language of the constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law. 1 Kent, Comm. 336; Bradley, J., in Moore v. U. S., 91 U. S. 270, 274.

In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the fourteenth amendment now in question, said: ‘The constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.’ And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision. 21 Wall. 167.

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.’ 124 U. S. 478, 8 Sup. Ct. 569.

There are other cases that US v Wong references that are pre-14th Amendment that still carry the same tenor — and are accepted in US v Wing — as Minor v. Happersett:

In US v Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the circuit court, said: ‘All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England.’ ‘We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.’ 1 Abb. (U. S.) 28, 40, 41, Fed. Cas. No. 16,151.

‘The term ‘citizen,’ as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term ‘subject’ in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from the man to the collective body of the people; and he who before was a ‘subject of the king’ is now ‘a citizen of the state.” State v. Manuel (1838) 4 Dev. & b. 20, 24-26.

Vattel was very clear on that matter as well.

He is going to have to be nailed on the Cover up.

I agree with you on that — he AND others (Rat & Rino alike) — will be nailed on the cover-up. And just like with Lincoln's assassins — may the punishment equal the crime.

[hoosiermama]

Ann Needs to read this:

http://www.westernjournalism.com/?page_id=2697

(BP, can you make it large, brightly colored and flashing so she doesn’t miss it when she reads this thread.) (wink)

[hoosiermama]

Want to leave a public message here just incase she stops by?

[firebrand]

I think everyone know this could happen. Yet we owe it to the republic to continue to investigate. It could turn out the other way too—it could be our October surprise if someone comes forward or if a fraud is revealed in some other way. The Lord is in charge. We can only continue to do what we think is right.

[BP2]

Ann rocks -- I've always liked her: she's pretty, smart, sharp-witted, a great communicator, and most important -- Conservative.

I'll see what I can do. The damage to Ann may be beyond repair of a simple Reiki "distance healing" session or Voodoo doll magick...

... but then again, maybe good ol' fashion REASON would work...

Simply put -- I can think of MANY cases where VERY smart have been manipulated by charismatic people. I don't know if that's the case here, but she sure does seem to be taking a path of least resistance.

There are SO many unanswered questions about Obama's birth if you take the time to learn about it -- I cannot see how a reasonable person knowing a scintilla of the facts would not be damn curious to know if Ann Dunman was -- in fact -- on US soil and if Obama is -- in fact -- a NBC.

[firebrand]

The argument that proof is not legally required does not make sense, as many things are not legally required but if the issue arises, people want the truth. To insist that the Constitution must cover everything is ridiculous; it doesn’t and it shouldn’t.

[firebrand]

And you don’t think so? He signed all those bills.

[Star Traveler]

You said — The argument that proof is not legally required does not make sense, as many things are not legally required but if the issue arises, people want the truth.

—

If the proof of a birth certificate was required then it would have been done a long time ago. It wasn’t. It was never demanded and there’s nothing legally that is there that requires it. But, what *is* demanded is the following...

(1) natural born citizen
(2) 35 or older
(3) resident for 14 years or more

And the candidates have sworn to that, including Obama. So, if you think they should have done differently, I guess you should have been “on their case” a few decades ago... :-)

[LucyT]

Thanks, BP2, good post.

Check out #112.