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/

[scott7278]

I wonder if a notary public would have standing? After all, their primary purpose is to prevent fraud in legal transactions by promoting the integrity of signed documents, and to make sure that the transactions are properly executed.

It could be argued that they need to maintain the integrity of notaries public, especially since the oath was sworn to them.

I’m just thinking out loud.

[Star Traveler]

No, the notary is not to determine the validity of the statements made, but rather that it’s you and that this is the date when it happened and that they witnessed the signature (plus if there are several pages, I think they have to validate how many and mark each one). That’s all they are doing, just that it’s you and you signed it and the date.

[scott7278]

Yes, but a notary has a duty to refuse if he/she suspects fraud, in order to maintain integrity of the system.

What if a notary did everything to verify (they were not negligent), but fraud was suspected after being notarized?

Would they not have a duty to let this be known?

[RummyChick]

SIGH...You are wrong. The Justice in the Minor opinion did not resolve the issue because it was not pertinent to his case. If you don’t understand that concept then read the dissenting opinion in Wong that discusses Minor. IF you understand legal wording you will discover that the Justice indicates that it was not resolved. So even if you can’t seem to grasp that simple concept..the Justice in Wong tells it to you.

Like it or not, WONG is the case to look to under the Supremacy Clause.

IF you can’t understand this concept, ask a Lawyer who is familiar with this case if SCOTUS can just ignore Wong OR do they have to address it and decide if they agree with concepts laid out in it.

[RummyChick]

BP2 is flat out wrong and this continued posting of Minor creating a law when it doesn’t is bad for the “birthers” .It makes them look like they are either ignorant when it comes to reading the law or intentionally misleading the public - either way...not a good thing when you are trying to persuade someone about the seriousness of the issue.

The court in Minor did NOT resolve that issue. It said there were doubts but that is all it said. It didn’t even say that THIS COURT has doubts.

It didn’t say there was a requirement to have two parents that were citizens. It didn’t address it because it wasn’t relevent to their case at hand that was about a woman not getting to vote...and they were determining if a woman was a citizen, etc.

It said essentially....if there were two parents that were citizens....then....

If..then....

NOT

ONLY IF

Understand the difference?

“For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens.”

[Spaulding]

Since you seem interested, and no one has directed you in this, Vattel wrote in French, but by 1775 there were English translations. As to the accepted interpretation of what we call natural born citizen, I'll refer you to The Venus, the prevailing decision by Chief Justice John Marshall in 1814:

The whole system of decisions applicable to this subject rests on the law of nations as its base. It is therefore of some importance to inquire how far the writers on that law consider the subjects of one power residing within the territory of another, as retaining their original character or partaking of the character of the nation in which they reside.

Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says

“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 indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.”

“Natives and indigenes” are alternative terms, indigenes obviously from the French, for natural born citizen, the precise term used in the English translation of Law of Nations. So yes, Marshall, referring to Vattel, says “parents who are citizens”.

Others have explained Wong to you so I won't bother. The term has been restated in dozens of cases. Even Patrick Leahy, in Senate Res. 511, which is, I agree, absolutely non-binding, restates the “both parents citizens” requirement, in the attempt to mislead as to McCain's natural born citizen problems.

You can purchase the English translation of Law of Nations at Amazon. Of course it was translated, though Franklin, Madison, John Jay, and Washington were all fluent in French.

There are lots of cases which cite natural born citizen. Try Minor v. Happersett. It is quite explicit about the term and its source. Also, find the congressional address by John Bingham, author of the 14th Amendment. I have seen at least a dozen other supreme court cases, one, Nguyen v. INS in 2001, in which the definition is discussed (and Ginsberg reveals, on page 23/24, that she didn't understand the definition).

As for Jonathan Turley, he appears not to have addressed the issue directly, though there seems a lively discussion of the meaning of natural born citizen, and a number of knowledgeable people correcting misinformation. If there is any disagreement with my interpretations, it is that Vattel speaks of the allegiance passed from the father's citizenship, rather than from both parents. I can't recall the chain of reasoning which includes mothers, since women couldn't vote, and assumed the citizenship of the father. But it isn't germane, so I'll leave it at that. The dozen cases I've read cite “parents”, and at least John Jay, Franklin, Marshall and Bingham cite Vattel as the source, so if there were an argument, Obama’s father's lack of citizenship is sufficient to confirm his ineligibility.

[RummyChick]

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE FULLER Dissent in Wong:

“I do not insist that, although what was said was deemed essential to the argument and a necessary part of it, the point was definitively disposed of in the Slaughterhouse Cases, particularly as Chief Justice Waite in Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 167, remarked that there were doubts which, for the purposes of the case then in hand, it was not necessary to solve.”

By the way, this same Justice felt that it was within the powers to exclude persons of a certain race from being citizens EVEN IF BORN IN THE US.

“In other words, the Fourteenth Amendment does not exclude from citizenship by birth children born in the United States of parents permanently located therein, and who might themselves become citizens; nor, on the other hand, does it arbitrarily make citizens of children born in the United States of parents who, according to the will of their native government and of this Government, are and must remain aliens. Tested by this rule, Wong in Ark never became and is not a citizen of the United States, and the order of the District Court should be reversed. “

[RummyChick]

“There are lots of cases which cite natural born citizen. Try Minor v. Happersett. It is quite explicit about the term and its source.”

If you are saying this to mean that Minor concludes that you MUST Have two citizens as parents...then I can’t even bother to listen to anything else you have to say BECAUSE that is CLEARLY not the case.

[RummyChick]

Please provide the pertinent text in Nguyen that defines as law “natural born citizen” because that would be the case to look to since it is a 2001 Supreme Court Case.

Btw, that case talks about out of wedlock marriages and how it effects citizenship. This is pertinent to Obama because his parents did not have a Valid marriage. The difference is his mother was the US citizen. People keep citing the wrong residency requirement if Obama was born overseas.

He was born a bastard not a legitimate child even if there was a marriage in Maui..which no one has proven - because his dad was a bigamist.

[RummyChick]

oops..out of wedlock births not out of wedlock marriages.

[LucyT]

.

For BP2.

BP2, post #125 was meant for you; it reads in part:

BP2 is flat out wrong and this continued posting of Minor creating a law when it doesn’t is bad for the “birthers” .It makes them look like they are either ignorant when it comes to reading the law or intentionally misleading the public - either way...not a good thing when you are trying to persuade someone about the seriousness of the issue.

.

[BP2]

I never said the issue is resolved — get those bangs cut so you can read more clearly, hippie.

The SCOTUS needs to finish the job that has eluded Congress nearly 30 times in the last 130 years in defining “Natural-born citizen”, in context of Art II, Sect. 1, Clause 5 or otherwise.

The Minor case, as does the Wong case, are some of the FEW cases that dance around the subject of “Natural-born citizen” and give insight. The Minor case comes close, as is referenced in the US v. Wong case

The cases give us a glimpse as to how the SCOTUS would rule, just as they defined “to keep and bear arms” in the DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER case last year. They turned to Vattel, Common Law and other sources available to the Founders to define (not re-define) original Constitutional wording and concepts.

Art VI, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution was first used by the SCOTUS in 1819 in stating that Maryland could not tax the Second Bank of the United States. Most recently in 1982, the SCOTUS ruled, “A state statute is void to the extent that it actually conflicts with a valid federal statute” — neither the Supremacy Clause, nor any related SCOTUS ruling, says that all Common Law is bunk, so therefore ignore it when making a Constitutional ruling!

As Constitutional scholar Larry Kramer has said, "Their [i.e., the Framers'] Constitution was not ordinary law, not peculiar to the stuff or courts and judges. It was ... a special form of popular law, law made by the people to bind their governors, and so subject to rules and considerations that made it qualitatively different from (and not just superior to) statutory or common law." Federal law is superior to state law -- but it does not ignore Common Law when such reference is needed, especially to define the Framers.

The 14th Amendment, Wong, Minor or any other case or Naturalization Act does NOT define that a “Citizen” is a “Natural-born Citizen” — that is only wishful thinking of the Left.

[RummyChick]

You claimed the guiding light was Minor and not Wong.

You are wrong.

Minor did nothing to resolve the issue.

Wong is the case under the Supremacy Clause unless you find me one later than Wong.

[BP2]

“Minor v. Happersett” — 1874
“US v. Wong” — 1898

Guiding light — first.
Guiding light — tells us where to find what we're looking for.

“Minor v. Happersett” is quoted as a source in “US v. Wong”. “Minor v. Happersett” indicates where to look, and is affirmed by “US v. Wong”. Neither "resolves the issue", but “Minor v. Happersett” certainly tells us where to look:

Common Law

"Minor v. Happersett" says the following:

This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides [n6] that “no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,” [n7] and that Congress shall have power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens [a reference to Vattel's Law of Nations], as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction [a reference to the 14th Amendment, ratified just six years earlier, in 1868] without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.

[RummyChick]

Seriously, are you a lawyer? because you have some f’ed up analysis. I am interested to know if you are a lawyer.

Why don’t you start here and try to understand Wong.

You could start here and see if you have any kind of understand how the Justice is ruling in that case..WHICH IS THE CASE TO USE RIGHT NOW by lower courts under the Supremacy Clause - unless you can find a later one. Do you know about the Supremacy Clause???

“The only adjudication that has been made by this court upon the meaning of the clause ‘and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,’ in the leading provision of the fourteenth amendment, is Elk v. Wilkins....The decision in Elk v. Wilkins concerned only members of the Indian tribes within the United States, and had no tendency to deny citizenship to children born in the United States of foreign parents of Caucasian, African, or Mongolian descent, not in the diplomatic service of a foreign country. “

[STE=Q]

Way to go Ann!

We stuck up for you years ago when you were an unknown nobody.

Remember when you were excoriated for saying “we should invade their country, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity?”

Remember when you got fired for calling your bosses “girly boys?”

We stuck up for you through thick and thin... but now that you’re a “big shot” you throw us under the buss.

What goes up must come down.

Hope you enjoy the decline as much as you enjoyed the ascent.

Ann who?

Have a nice life!

STE=Q

[petitfour]

If there’s nothing to hide, why is Obama afraid to show his ID? Why do they fight it in court? Is this the “I’m a black man so they’re asking me for more than they ask a white man, and I’m not gonna stand for it” situation similar to the recent Cambridge incident? The only difference here is that the Cambridge thing was caught on tape and happened over a few minutes. This birth certificate/citizenship thing has been drawn out over a few years. We still don’t know if Obama changed his name or was adopted. We still don’t know if he went to college via scholarships for foreign students.

[STE=Q]

As Constitutional scholar Larry Kramer has said, "Their [i.e., the Framers'] Constitution was not ordinary law, not peculiar to the stuff or courts and judges. It was ... a special form of popular law, law made by the people to bind their governors, and so subject to rules and considerations that made it qualitatively different from (and not just superior to) statutory or common law."

"a special form of popular law, law made by the people"

Excellent!

Thank you BP2!

Did someone use the "L" word?

For some strange reason the "L" word always reminds me of the -- so called -- 'Lost' Thirteenth Amendment

“…If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honor, or shall without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them”

Let's see... title of nobility or honor... where did I hear that?

Oh, I know, YOUR HONOR!

Of course, the "title," er, I mean, well, it's just a way of showing do respect to one who obviously holds a "higher" -- more "noble" -- station in life, you know, like when we say "my lord..."

Alrighty then...

By the way:

Where is it written in the constitution that one has to first be an 'attorney' to sit on the Supreme court?

If the framers of the constitution -- themselves, mostly attorneys -- thought it an unnecessary qualification, would it not follow that they wrote the constitution itself in such a way that ANY reasonable and literate person could understand it?

STE=Q

[Ahithophel]

There's an out of wedlock provision

Stanley Ann was married when she gave birth to in 1961 so 8 U.S.C 1409 isn't applicable. Maybe you're suggesting Barak's father is someone other than BHO, Sr.? BTW: Could it have been Frank Marshal Davis's apartment where those S.A.D. Christmas photos were taken?

[RummyChick]

Their marriage was Void Ab Initio