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/

[john mirse]

Let's have some fun with this Obama birth certificate issue:

1. Let's imagine that Geraldo Rivera, somewhere down the road, declares himself a candidate for President of the United States.

2. Can you imagine the uproar in each of the 57 states as people scream, shout, and loudly protest to demand that Geraldo present his long form birth certificate and his college records when he registers to run in the primaries of each of those 57 states. (Obama said that there were 57 states, and he doesn't make mistakes, as we know.)

3. Do you think that Geraldo would refuse to provide his long form birth certificate and his college records and call people a bunch of crazies and birthers for demanding to see Geraldo's long form birth certificate and his college records?

4. Do you also think that Geraldo would spend $500,000 to $1,000,000 and counting to have lawyers stop the courts from releasing his long form birth certificates and his college records?

5. If Geraldo refused such a request about his long form birth certificate and his college records, I think that Geraldo would run into a very mad group of voters.

6. As I said, I was just having some fun, because we all know that a person from a Puerto Rican background like Geraldo will be appointed to the U.S Supreme Court before Geraldo would even think about running for President of the United States, and we all know that a Puerto Rican on the Supreme Court won't happen any time soon.

[RummyChick]

Here we go again..where does it say that BOTH parents need to be US citizens. Find me a case that is precedent under The Supremecy Clause that outlines the definition “natural born citizen”. Right now, the Wong case is the guiding factor.

Here is an important excerpt:

“III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”

And what was the Justice referring to??? Maybe you should really read Wong.

There is plenty of discussion on this site about Vattel in the comments areas from Constitutional lawyers. They don’t all agree.
http://jonathanturley.org/

Vattel’s work was in a foreign language. Did the French language have a term for “natural born citizen” - NO.

It is not certain that Obama would be ruled out as being a Natural Born citzen if it got to court. Wong will be the center of attention.

Not everyone agrees with Wong but it is the case to look to..unless you can find one that supersedes it.

By the way, a Senate Resolution is not law.

[MHGinTN]

The Wong Kim Ark case is not the guiding factor. Far from it:

[[Concerning Wong Kim Ark:

Updated 12/10/08
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?

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 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 (Gray was appointed by Chester Arthur and was sent ot the court, IMHO, to make Arthur fit eligibility he did not have, but that is grist for another mill):

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.

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.

Reviewing the intended purpose behind the words of the clause by both Sen. Howard and Sen. Trumbull, who were responsible for the drafting of the citizenship clause, clearly revealed the intended effect of the clause; leavening little doubt to why justice Gray desired to avoid the legislative history of this language.

Howard presents a major hurdle for the majority when he specifically declared the clause to be “virtue of natural law and national law,” never once making any reference to England’s common law doctrine. Perhaps this is why Gray wasted much of his commentary along common law themes. The Civil Rights Bill of 1866 posed too large of a hurdle to dismiss outright - as this national law only recognized citizenship by birth to those who were not subject to some other foreign power.

John A. Bingham, chief architect of the 14th Amendments first section, considered the proposed national law (Section 1992 of the US Revised Statutes) as “simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…” If this law was simply to reaffirm the common law doctrine then the condition of the parents would be totally irrelevant.

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.”

As mentioned earlier, the Supreme Court had already tackled the meaning of the 14th amendment’s citizenship clause prior to Wong Kim Ark, and unlike the Kim Ark court, did consider the intent and meaning of the words by those who introduced the language of the clause. In the Slaughterhouse cases the court noted “[t]he phrase, ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.”

Even the dissenting minority affirmed that the result of the citizenship clause was designed to ensure that all persons born within the United States were both citizens of the United States and the state in which they resided, provided they were not at the time subjects of any foreign power.

Would anyone dare to say an American citizen visiting Russia was no longer a subject of the United States? The court in Elk v. Wilkins (1884) correctly determined that “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States required “not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.” Both Jacob Howard and Lyman Trumbull affirm this.

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.

The court in Minor vs. Happersett (1874) acknowledged that some, not all, but some authorities go as far to “include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first [born to American citizens].”

It was these kind of doubts Howard desired to settle through constitutional amendment. Sen. Howard said of the amendment: “It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States.” This was needed to prevent rebel States from refusing to recognize former slaves (now citizens) as citizens of the United States under Article IV, Sec. II of the U.S. Constitution.

Furthermore, these former slaves had no political attachment to any other country, meaning they did not owe “allegiance to anybody else.”

To add additional insult, the court says: “Nor can it be doubted that it is the inherent right of every independent nation to determine for itself, and according to its own constitution and laws, what classes of persons shall be entitled to its citizenship.” Yet, the court refused to recognize the fact the United States had done just that through its revised statutes and Constitution.

The most significant truth to come out of the entire Wong Kim Ark ruling comes from Chief Justice Fuller himself, when he said, “the words ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof,’ in the amendment, were used as synonymous with the words ‘and not subject to any foreign power.’” He was absolutely correct.

Only reason the language of the Fourteenth differs from the civil rights bill of 1866, which used the language “and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed” to restrict citizenship, is because Sen. Howard feared a State could begin taxing Indians, thereby making them eligible for citizenship. Because Indians, and other classes of foreigners whom Congress and the States desired to withhold citizenship from, owed allegiance to a foreign power (Indian tribes were considered independent nations), the Fourteenth would become just as restrictive against Indians by demanding full jurisdiction on part of the United States as with any other class of foreigners.

It was the U.S. government who argued Wong Kim Ark was not born subject to the jurisdiction to the United States. Obviously then, the Federal Government had no difficulty in understanding the words of its own revised statutes or constitutional amendment.

For the majority to have been correct with their conclusion they would have to demonstrate how it was possible the States and Federal Government retained England’s “natural allegiance” doctrine. This “natural allegiance” was something most everyone despised and hated. Fuller argued this “rule making locality of birth the criterion of citizenship because creating a permanent tie of allegiance, no more survived the American Revolution than the same rule survived the French Revolution.”

The most damning indictment against the majority’s conclusion came in the year 1874 with a joint Congressional report that declared the “United States have not recognized a double allegiance.” This makes it impossible to argue the words “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was merely to reassert the common law doctrine of unconditional allegiance through birth. The common law doctrine by operation creates double allegiances by making children of other nation’s citizens born locally subjects of the crown whether they consent or not.

There is also a disturbing ethical aspect of Wong Kim Ark in terms of the majorities’ apparent willingness to place themselves unethically above both facts and the supreme law of the land. The United States by treaty with China was prevented from admitting Chinese subjects to citizenship. This treaty was ratified by the same senators who had adopted both Section 1992 of the US Revised Statutes and the Fourteenth Amendment.

Furthermore, the court was also prohibited under 22 Stat. § 14 to admit subjects of China to U.S. citizenship: “that hereafter no state court or court of the United States shall admit Chinese to citizenship, and all laws in conflict with this act are hereby repealed.”

The power to admit foreign citizens to U.S. citizenship resides exclusively with Congress and not with the Supreme Court. In essence, the court usurped the lawful will of the legislative branch.

The Fuller court was no stranger to criticism or controversy when it came to interpreting law or the Constitution. For example, Justice Brewer for the court laid down a bizarre doctrine that said it was “immaterial” how one obtains property: “He may have made his fortune by dealing in slaves, as a lobbyist, or in any other way obnoxious to public condemnation; but, if he has acquired the legal title to his property, he is protected in its possession, and cannot be disturbed until the receipt of the actual cash value.”

Note that “dealing in slaves” was illegal. So under this majority opinion crime could certainly have its advantages. Only the mafia (or a railroad magnate) could appreciate this kind of twisted logic.

In the cases of Brooks vs. Codman, and Foote v. Women’s Board of Missions where the court stepped in to revise an act of Congress that was standing in the way of making Justice Horace Gray a wealthy man. Codman was the administrator of Justice Gray’s grandfather’s (William) estate and under a 1891 law payments from the estate could only go to “creditors, legatees, assignees or strangers to the blood.”

What did the court do? They did just as they had in Wong Kim Ark, they simply said Congress did not mean what it said it meant, and instead, meant “next of kin.” Who was William Gray’s “next of kin”? None other than Justice Gray himself.

Conclusion

Taken into account the legislative history behind the citizenship clause - and the courts own stated objective in reaching the conclusion they did while also taking into account two prior Supreme Court holdings - leaves the Wong Kim Ark ruling as worthless as a three-dollar bill. The Court will never be able to sugarcoat over history or deny the acts of Congress in attempt to maintain England’s old feudal common law doctrine in this country at the expense of rendering unethical and legally unsound rulings.

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. [[ http://federalistblog.us/2006/12/us_v_wong_kim_ark_can_never_be_considered.html ]]

[RummyChick]

The Supremacy Clause

Wong 1898

[john mirse]

I'm looking at Obama's signature on his Arizona eligibility form. He signed it in Nov. 2007.

Selective Service form: To me, Obama's signature on his Selective Service form is very different from his signature on the Arizona form from about 25 years later.

To me, it is as if two DIFFERENT people signed the two legal documents.

Myself, I didn't realize a person's signature could change as much as Obama's signature seems to have changed in the past 25 years.

I would like to see an example of Obama's signature from 25 years ago---like a signature from his days at Occidental, Columbia, and Harvard---so that I can compare it to his signature on the Arizona eligibility form that I see on the internet.

[MHGinTN]

One of your finest posts! Kudos.

[RummyChick]

You don’t have to agree with Wong. The current SCOTUS might not agree with Wong.

but it is THE guiding case right now under the Supremacy Clause - unless you to find another Supreme Court case dated after that one.

By the way, did you bother to find out you were wrong about Obama being a UK citizen just because his father was a UK Citizen?

[TommyDale]

I think his real father is unknown.

[TommyDale]

Or if not unknown, a black man of such major impact that this is the reason for the coverup.

[jazminerose]

Unless Axe dug up something even worse on the Klintoons.
It sure is out of character for the Hill to keep such a low profile. BHO managed to defeat the Clinton machine & bring Bill & Hill both to heel.

Anyone else wondering how he did it?

[Uri’el-2012]

Doesn't BHO have a Social Security Card number from
some part of the country that he has never visited ?

[MHGinTN]

How many black votes do you think the Rodham Rodent would have gotten had she had their affirmative action messiah disqualified using the strictest Constitutional requirement? ANd how many democrats would have been elected in close districts without a substantial black vote? And why do you think Barry and Hillary were invited, together, to Diane Feinswine’s Georgetown home at a crucial stage in the primaries? And following that little visit, Hillary stopped fighting for the poor delegates who were being run over by the ACORN thuggery at the caucuses.

[Star Traveler]

You said — Myself, I didn’t realize a person’s signature could change as much as Obama’s signature seems to have changed in the past 25 years.

—

I said this in another post...

I worked for a guy one time that “manufactured” his signature in a special way (and you couldn’t actually “read” it), so that it was just a bunch of scribbling, but it was unique to him and no one else could duplicate it. You couldn’t make out anything except the first letter of the first name and the first letter of the last name.... When he signed things, it was like he was “drawing” something... LOL

Now, you or I probably “sign” out names and people can mostly read the name. Take a look at the Notary there... you can actually read his name. But not Obama’s

So, anyway, I think that’s what some people do with their signatures, at a certain time, later on, if they want to... it’s kind of like a “signature” is a “drawing” for them...

[Star Traveler]

You said — Are you aware that Lou Dobbs reported that HI officials (of course) now claim the COLB is lost or destroyed just after or because of the switch to an electronic birth record system. I have been predicting this would happen from the beginning

—

They’re not claiming it’s lost or destroyed. It’s inside a digital system that they converted to in 2001. They discarded the paper when they finished the switching over. The birth certificate is there and can be printed out and certified just like it always has been before, when they did it from paper. Now, they do it from digital...

[BP2]

By the way, a Senate Resolution is not law.

YES -- BUT understand, that the SCOTUS has elected NOT to consider NBC, as they feel it's a Congressional matter. They SHOULD, but it's too political for them -- must have learned something from Gore v Bush in 2000. IMO, they should take a case, to formally say that the Legislature SHOULD tackle the problem.

ALSO understand that out of nearly 30 other attempts by Congress to (re)define "Natural Born Citizen" since the 1870s, S. Res 511 from the Democrat-controlled Congress is the ONLY formal Resolution from the House or Senate on "Natural Born Citizen" to make it out of Committee.

Without objection, "Natural Born Citizen" requirements were outlined last year when the Senate passed S. Res. 511 for Sen. John McCain -- approved by Sen. Barack Obama, co-sponsor of the resolution.

April 30, 2008
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE, pgs. S3645-3646
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?position=all&page=S3646&dbname=2008_record

Therefore, based on the original meaning
of the Constitution, the Framers’ intentions,
and subsequent legal and historical precedent,
Senator McCain’s birth to parents who
were U.S. citizens, serving on a U.S. military
base in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936,
makes him a ‘‘natural born Citizen’’ within
the meaning of the Constitution.

S. Res. 511: A resolution recognizing that John Sidney McCain, III, is a natural born citizen

	Introduced	Apr 10, 2008
	Referred to Committee	View Committee Assignments
	Reported by Committee	Apr 24, 2008
	Passed Senate	Apr 30, 2008

[jdoug666]

I was incredulous when Huckabee rhetorically asked that if Obama’s citizenship had been in question, why didn’t Hillary and McCain make an issue of it for political gain? In the case of Clinton, she was duking it out in Democratic primaries. To have even hinted that Obama might to be what he appears to be vis-a-vis his purported Hawaiian birth would have been political suicide. She would have been labeled a racist and dispensed with. McCain has his own ‘natural born’ challenges, specifically a Panamanian birth. To his credit, McCain didn’t hold back any document that might shed light on both his qualifications to be president as well as his health (some 150 pages of health records). Contrast that with Obama who released a one-page summary of his health and little else (the well-known laundry list of sealed and secreted documents going back to high school).

The editor of Politico (the hatchet man Ben Smith’s boss) said on CNN’s Reliable Sources that a significant number of Birthers are racist who can’t accept an African-American president. I hope all of us Birthers have thick hides. The MSM are poised to shoot all the poison darts in their arsenal in order to prevent Obama from being outed as the presidential usurper that he most certainly is. The race card will also be used to provoke blacks and other minorities into all manner of protest (including, sadly, violence) in reaction to any attempt to remove Obama from office.

That, Gov. Huckabee, is why leading politicians are loathe to address the elephant/donkey in the room. (See? I covered both political parties.) ‘Conservatives’ like Coulter and Huckabee are just as keen in seeing all of this go away as are the Democrats. Domestic tranquility will be at grave risk as all of this unfolds. Just ask FEMA.

[BP2]

If they wanted parent (NO "S", as in parents) to appear in the Congressional Record, they could/should have edited the record to reflect it as such. Words mean things...

[RummyChick]

I have come to my own opinions after extensive search on this.

I believe he is a US citizen no matter where he was born because he was born out of wedlock. Even if Hawaii recognized a customary marriage..how would you go about proving there was one..the parties are dead. That would be a nightmare.

Natural Born Citizen will have to be determined by Scotus and boy would it be a wild time there. I don’t think any of them want to deal with it right now.

But the cover up of the real facts is what would kill the rest of his career. Or at least it should. It probably depends on how bad he kills America. Bill Clinton got away with a lot.

I have a strong opinion that the Spooks were involved with that family. Too much has been able to disappear.

My only ray of hope at this point is that there are some Democrats that will realize they will be out in 2010 if they continue down this awful road to Socialism.

He will never have a real claim to the Presidency to me unless I can see that original long form certificate and see the hospital, date, and doctor.

It probably says midwife or some such thing.

[Yorlik803]

She supports Romney
She says the Birth thing is no big thing.
One more strike and I will be forced to put her over my knee and give her a good, hard spanking.

[RummyChick]

None of that matters. There is no law on it that defines it. The guiding case right now is Wong -unless you can find another.

So until there is a law that has been passed or unless SCOTUS makes a ruling..Wong stands under The Supremacy Clause.

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

I don’t understand why Cook’s lawyer hasn’t sent for a verification letter, yet. If any of you know her tell her to do it and see what happens.