Skip to comments.Ann Coulter: Very Popular Birther Issue Has Nothing To Do With Obama Being Black (Sr. a UK student)
Posted on 09/29/2012 12:31:26 PM PDT by Seizethecarp
audio @ 1:25: "It has nothing to do with Obama being black. It has to do with his father being here on a student visa. If his father had been from France, came here, had a child and then went back to France there would be conspiracy theories. There were conspiracy theories about Chester Arthur because his father was born in Ireland.
(Excerpt) Read more at obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com ...
Ann Coulter channels Donofrio eligibility ping...
Book sales down.
SOmeone must have had a Loooong talk with Ann. Now An needs to pass the information around.
You are so right!
She said she thinks it is a conspiracy theory and she thinks it is false! and... Sean thinks it is false!
What’s new. The constitution has no value to Ann. A Natural Born citizen MUST have TWO citizen parents! How stupid can Ann be if she can defend this topic in this video and then claim Barack Hussein Obama is a “Natural Born Citizen?”
Did she get Hoopi’s permission on this?
So, Ann *just* figured this out? Gee, she’s swift.
sadly, she still hasn’t got a clue.
the only thing she has correct here, is that it has nothing to do with racism.
but “student atatus” isn’t relevent to the contstitution. it has to do with citizenship of the parents.
sadly, she cannot comprehend the contstitutional requirements.
Nah, it has to do with who is really Barry’s daddy....
Did Chester Arthur take great pains to keep his family history a secret?
Yes Ol’ Chester managed to get away with committing a treasonous felony.
Since he got away with it that makes defrauding the American people and suborning the Constitution A-OK in your book.
Is that what you’re trying to say?
Remember, the whole birther thing actually started with McCain’s birthplace and was taken so seriously, Congress passed a resolution about it.
Least your implication confuse those who haven't followed Donofrio until he decided that the state of ignorance and culpibility in the citizenry and both political parties made legal discussion futile, Chester went so far as to hide all has family documents, including his birth certificate, and, when he knew he was within weeks of dying, had them all burned. Donofrio, poring over materials gathered over many years by an Arthur biographer, came across a reference to the the date of Chester's father's naturalization, a reference which others had probably seen, but didn't recognize as relevent, having been prompted to look for clues about where Chester was born. That misdirection, the hiding of legal documents in his possession, is what Obama appears to be using to redirect the inquiry.
The evidence, always right in front of everyone’s face, is Obama himself, who calmly explained that “I am a native-born citizen of the US.” The issue is a Constitutional issue, and Barry's Harvard adviser, Larry Tribe, on his campaign committee and author of the letter where his campaign committee paved the path with two Senate actions, SB 2678 and SR 511, February and April of 2008, for McCain, whom Democrats had prevously proved ineligible, to be Obama's opponent.
Do one in ten million understand that Obama was telling us he is a naturalized citizen? That is the language of the 14th Amendment, the “Naturalization” amendment, to naturalize slaves, who were not made citizens. Does one in ten million understand that natural born citizen does not appear to have been defined in the the Constitution because the Constitution doesn't have explicit definitions? Many have actually read the Constitution, but we read it assuming we understood the meanings of terms used therein. That assumption was exactly as the framers intended. The so-called natural language, the language most citizens understood without recourse to bewigged lords and their volumes of definitions for the English Common-Law, a legal system we fought a war to reject, was assumed for our republic based upon individual sovereigns, not men subjected by a King. Madison explained that because the meanings of words evolve over time, to preserve the original intent of the framers the Constitution's interpretation was to be assumed “At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar,...”, quoting from Chief Justice Waite's decsion in Minor v. Happersett.
Who knows why Ann Coulter joined in the battle against our Constitution and its framers? Didn't she clerk for Justice Thomas, or was that the other blond, Laura Ingrahm? Obama is not a natural born citizen because he told us he wasn't. He is a naturalized citizen. There are two classes of citizen, natural, and naturalized.
Coulter’s appearances and income have been significantly reduced by her betrayal of the Constitution. But when she appears, it is usually on FOX News, whose largest private stockholder is the Saudi Royal Family, in the name of Alwaleed bin-Talal. Bin-Talal also supports the largest division in Harvard Divinity School, The Alwaleed bin-Talal Center for Islamic Studies. Bin-Talal donated twenty million dollars to Harvard about the time Percy Sutton, at the request of bin-Talal’s lawyer, Khalid al-Mansour/Don Warden (Black Panther Founder), used his influence to help get Barry into Harvard Law. Bin-Talal has publicly boasted about his influence over editorial policy at the WSJ and FOX News. How many appearances would Coulter make if she had explained the reasoning of five Chief Justices to her large public? Her lack of candor has cost her, but we can't know what they have in raw FBI files with which to destroy her. Mark Levin is probably in the same boat - two children in college and a financially troubled legal watchdog law firm dependent upon politically motivated law suits. There are laws against incitement that could apply, and as a justice department under Bush did to Scooter Libby charges, a corrupt government has the power to bankrupt anyone it wants, and even put them in prison.
Rudy Giuliani refused bin-Talal’s payola, but Harvard didn't, and apparently, if we believe Percy Sutton, Charles Rangel’s and Malcolm X's and Louis Farrakhan's personal attorney, neither did Barry/Barack. Coulter, perhaps like Clarence Thomas, knows the truth, but knows too that the vicious far left must be assumed to use any weapon at its disposal to achieve the objective, totalitarian Marxism. The Muslims believe it is their opportunity as well, as David Horowitz has explored so eloquently, and participate to further the conversion of America to Islam, just as Jimmy Carter turned the most liberal nation in the Middle East besides Israel, where women went to college with men and business thrived, and the middle class was rapidly growing, into an “Islamic Republic”, a dictatorship bent on destroying everyone they can't convert to Islam. Iran has become an Arab dictatorship, with Islam crushing its Persian core, which is the genius of the Muslim military ethos. Since Carter, Iran has become "The Islamic Republic of Iran." They believe America can be made an Islamic Republic, whether or not we believe it. Putin understands. China understands, India understands. But Obama, whether or not he is a believer, helped coordinate the Muslim Brotherhood's domination of the Middle East, and has its members in the While House, in our State Department, inn our Military and Homeland Security.
Its time to learn the abour our Constitution, and trust the original sources, not depend upon vulnerable pundits. Clarance Thomas as a disappointment, until one realizes that he probably knew who Roberts was. Without four justices no case has been or would be heard on the elibibility issue, and Clarence would have likely recused himself. He is still a great man, at least willing to hint that the Supreme Court was "evading" the issue. Coulter depends upon media access for her living. Her tongue is tied unless we can overcome the certain voter fraud, and the 47%, to remove Obama from office.
Coulter has became banal because the truth was her primary weapon. Now, like the predictable Levin and the predictable Limbaugh, she is constrained to complain about the symptoms and not the disease.
I think you are unnecessarily rough on Ann. Show me the clause in the Constitution that states that "A Natural Born citizen MUST have TWO citizen parents!."
No. Really. Show me (and I'm not even from Missouri.)
As I explained, quoting Chief Justice Morrison Waite, the Constitution has no definitions. The terms used in the Constitution come from our “common-law” and language familiar to our framers. Here is framer, founder, and Chief Justice John Marshall, explaining the common-law and citing his source in The Venus, 12 US 253:
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.
The Obots will argue over “indigense, a term from the orginal French edition of Vattel, but Waite removed any doubt when he affirmed the definition of “native” in his Minor v. Happersett, 88 US 162 (1894) decision:
“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, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”
Whether or not you are an Obot, you are using their sophistry to perpetrate confusion. I could provide thirty other citations, including the direct repetition of the Waite definition above as Justice Gray clarified who were natural born citizen in Wong Kim Ark. Hint; Wong Kim was born on our soil, and made a naturalized citizen.
Let's be clear that you explained nothing in the comment I referred to.
I am fully aware of the common law definitions of natural law as well as the subsequent legal decisions. All that said, the Constitution is what it is and that's all you referred to.
Please try to be more precise in future posts.
“She said she thinks it is a conspiracy theory and she thinks it is false! and... Sean thinks it is false!
Whats new. The constitution has no value to Ann. A Natural Born citizen MUST have TWO citizen parents! How stupid can Ann be if she can defend this topic in this video and then claim Barack Hussein Obama is a Natural Born Citizen?
That’s what is so frustrating. It’s what we were taught. We get it. What are you if you don’t get it? Even Mark Levin cuts everyone off if they dare bring this up. Rush jokes but he doesn’t invite discussion. There isn’t anyone which makes me think this is more sinister than we can guess.
Don’t want to raise issues of moral equivalence. Just want the facts. Hard to come by these days.
Of course, the actual Chester Arthur conspiracy at which he succeeded was to HIDE his father's non-citizenship at his birth, while in contrast, Barry has DECLARED his father's non-citizenthip. That is hardly a conspiracy by Barry. The conspiracy by the judicial and legislative branches to ignore Barry's declaration of a UK citizen father (true or not, married to his mom or not) is the real scandal.
The truth that Coulter does not mention is that during his life, Chester Arthur was suspected of conspiring to hide his own non-US soil birth. If true, that would be a conspiracy that would actually parallel what Barry is suspected of doing by “birthers.”
Now if she and others would just state the obvious...
“The images portrayed to be birth certificates are obvious frauds with the intent of misleading the American public.”
Anne must have had a gestalt moment brought on by memories of her arab boyfriend.
Too bad Anne has decided to be a member of the RINO republican establishment.She could have helped the issue tremendously earlier on. Now its too little too late, Anne.
As we all know, the Constitution is not a dictionary. But, if a person was born in a country of two citizen parents of that country, what could that person be but a natural born citizen?
Any other scenario you try to fit, is a legal construction, not natural law.
NO! I want you to show me the clause that says they must be LIVING.
What's that you say? It's not in there? Why isn't it written in the Constitution that they must be ALIVE? Could it be that the requirement was so bloody obvious that no one felt that it needed to be specified?
In 1787, only the FATHER determined nationality. The mother was AUTOMATICALLY the same citizenship as the Father. Marriage Automatically naturalized the Women, so there was no real need to concern ourselves with the Woman's citizenship. It is ONLY the citizenship of the Father which mattered. This was a legal principle known as "Partus Sequitur Patrem" (Which is my tagline, by the way)
You may not understand this, but the Word "Patria" means "Country" in Latin. The word "Patriot" is a derivative of it. In fact, the word "Patria" is derived from "Pater", which of course means "Father". To be quite Honest, "Patria" means "land of my Father."
The "Two citizen parent" was automatic if the Father was a Citizen. (Prior to 1922, anyway) It does not need to be specified that both need to be citizens, because the one was automatically a citizen if the other was a citizen. Nobody in 1787 ever thought that future generations would be so ignorant and stupid as to need this spelled out to them.
They really underestimated how Ignorant and stupid modern Americans could become.
If you think she has a cognitive disconnect now, wait till you read her comments on Anchor Babies. For some reason she does not consider them to be citizens at all.
Absolutely Larry - Moe and Curly. The Constitution is not a dictionary. But more important is the reason for that construction. Some involvement in astrophysics caused a casual introduction to the notion of ‘time invariance.’ Decades ago I thought “obviously.” Now I see how essential was that principle.
When doing physics the tools assume the modern physical principles with which we are familiar. Looking back twenty billion years and trying to understand the phenomena means nothing unless we assume that physical principles then were the same as those with which we are familiar today. That is why our framers, and Madison in particular, stipulated that interpretation of the Constitution needed to use the langurage familiar to our framers. We had some brilliant men translating natural law and the Laws of Nations into laws appropriate to making and keeping individuals sovereign citizens, and not subject to a monarch or dictator.
A casual comment from a journal dedicated to another of the philosophers of the enlightenment, Hugo Grotius, caught my attention. The author cited the popularity of Vattel, and provided data, actual counts of citations to Law of Nations in US courts. Citations to Vattel dominated all other sources, as a casual glance at Marshall's writing in The Venus, and Jefferson's decision to make Law of Nations by Vattel our first law book at our first law school are examples of the Grotian Society reference. Hamilton's letters to Washington are filled with citations to Vattel. Biographers noted, and records confirm, that Law of Nations was the first book in President Washington's office in 1789 was borrowed from a New York lending library, since Washington's belongings had not yet reached our first capital. (Someone calculated the overdue penalty since Washington never returned the borrowed copy.)
Our framers were reaching for rigor. It caught my attention that Vattel’s principal influence was the work of Gottlieb Leibniz, one, with Issac Newton, of the mathematicians who created the calculus. Our Constitution reflects an effort to base the new nation on an axiomatic foundation based upon natural law. That is explicitly stated in our Declaration of Independence. Without a fixed foundation axiomatic legal construction is meaningless. The English, for example, have no Constitution. The titled ruling class writes the laws to protect itself.
If one goes to the foundations of mathematics, truth is simply, according to Descartes, “clear and distinct to the human reason.” Mathematics is based upon intuition. That a child inherits the allegiances of the father (parents, since the mother was assumed to follow the father - which many today would question), is one of those principles which most human beings have accepted as a foundational truth - natural law.
So the Constitution is not a dictionary, but not fixing the definition renders it meaningless. Words are assumed to mean what most people thought they meant, and Vattel was the most widely used and accepted source for legal definitions. Just count the incidents of “Vattel said” in Supreme Court decisions for the fifty years or so from 1787, or just glance at John Marshalls contribution to The Venus, 12 US 253, (1814).
That is not a logical answer.
The last refuge of a kwow-nothing on FR is to call someone a Marxist or an "Obot." The comment I responded to questioned Ann Coulter's fealty to the Constitution.
It was a silly comment as the Constitution leaves open the definition of "natural born citizen." Every comment on here proves my point.
The Constitution doesn’t contain definitions. Why maintain that it must when it does not?
For example, Section I of the Constitution requires that those serving in Congress, both Representatives and Senators, must be Citizens. Yet it does not define the term.
Federal statutes today define the term. Three types of statutaory citizenship are recognized by our government: native born; naturalized; and citizen-by-statute (derived citizenship from parents). All have equal rights. All can serve in Congress, either as a Representative in the House, or as a Senator in the Senate.
The following link will take you to the governments own Immigration Service web page describing the three types of citizenship.
Natural born Citizen is NOT a type of statutory citizenship. It is only a Constitutional reguirement to be President of the United States per Article II, Section 1, clause 5, of the U.S. Constitution.
The definition of natural born Citizen appears in the holding of SCOTUSs unanimous decision of Minor v. Happersett (1874).
Virginia Minor sued to be included as a candidate for U.S. President based on her eligibility under the 14th Amendment to the U.S.Constitution. SCOTUS rejected her argument and examined her eligibility, concluding that she belonged to the class of citizens who, being born in the U.S. of citizen parents, was a natural born Citizen, and not covered by the 14th Amendment. This holding has been used in 25 consequent SCOTUS decisions since 1875.
No one has the RIGHT to be President. The eligibility requirement of Natural Born Citizenship (jus solis + jus sanguinas: born in the U.S. of U.S. citizen parents) must be viewed as a means to prevent split allegiance for any President of the United States.
BfloGuy, I didn't call you an Obot. I raised the question, and you seem to be answering in the affirmative. The Constitution leaves nothing open about the definition of natural born citizenship. The Constitution contains no definitions, depending upon the common-law and language familiar to the framers.
Common-law is “common” because there are no doubts about the common-language used to express the common-law. All our framers and founders were intimately familiar with Law of Nations. Ben Franklin ordered and distributed copies in the 1760s, and noted in letters to the publisher that they were constantly in use by our Continental Congress after 1776. You are repeating nonsense; that is the behavior of Obots. You may simply be ignorant.
If you can find a single Supreme Court decision (not from the dissent), or a single sentence from the 14th Amendment, or a single statement by our State Department that contravenes “born on the soil of parents who were its citizens”, you have something to say. But if you did, you'd be the first.
“That is not a logical answer.”
That is not a logical answer to what?
You mean Obama might be constitutionally ineligible to run for President? First I've heard of it. Thanks Ann! Wonder if anyone has told Sean? Rush? Mark Levin, the Constitutional expert lawyer guy?
Say, this could be real news!
You’ve been here a lot longer than have I. How do you get the administrators or moderators of the site to answer questions you ask them?
I posted a thread last Friday about the Daily Mail picking up the story of Obama’s mother posing nude, and the thread disappeared. I assume they pulled it for some reason, but I might have made a mistake and it didn’t get posted correctly for some reason.
I asked the Admin if they pulled it, and I have received no response at all. Was wondering if I should post it again, or just assume they pulled it on purpose?
How do you get them to answer a question? They have never answered a question I have asked them so far. (Such as “Why was Bushpilot1 banned?” )
I’m interested in your opinion on how to contact the Administrators/Moderators.
I suppose it could be at that...
Did you not get the "News Memo?" Let me summarize:
(a) Ann, as all our "conbservative" celebrities do, gets the facts slightly, obtusely, wrong, dragging in extraneous crap that has nothing to do with anything.
(b) and since our SCOTUS (and every other court in the land) has come up with a series of novel legal excuses to duck this issue, the new "Springsteen Rule" on constitutional eligibilty requirements is in effect. Sing it with me, "Born in the USA."
Although I suppose, to be drearily technical, that Obama has not proven birth anywhere, that is the now-accepted version of events. Accepted, that is, by the media, the GOP's elected representatives, and our fearless Conservative Talk Radio Hosts. While all of these "leaders" keep telling us about Hawaii, the traditional idea that a "Natural Born Cittizen" is a person born of two (2) American Citizens has sunk without a trace; a brilliant misdirection for which Obama ought to be forever in their debt. If he hasn't paid them, he damn well ought to.
Of course, Sheriff Joe has demonstrated rather convincingly that since what Obama's lawyers picked up in Hawaii has no resemblance to the document released by the WH, what they released cannot be real. However, there is nowhere to go with that evidence. Instead of admitting that doubt, at the very least exists, the election officials in his state spin everyone's wheels with "calls to Hawaii" for this and that, which of courrse no one in Hawaii is in any way obligated to provide. It's simply not their job to insure the integrity of Arizona's ballot.
So, the mighty Ann allows as how there might be some sort of problem? BFD. So what, and what happens now? We have lived through a successful anti-constitutional coup. The real question is, "What happens to the Republic?"
Hint, hint, hint:
The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.
Citizen from birth. Hence not "made a naturalized citizen."
How does calling legitimate questions about Constitutional eligibility to serve as POTUS “conspiracy theories” make Coulter comparable in any way to Donofrio’s or others’ efforts in that regard???
No X. Wong Kim was naturalized at birth. His citizenship was determined by law, not by nature. The decision was entirely based upon the 14th Amendment, which nowhere uses the term “natural born citizen.” Furthermore, its principal author, John Bingham, clearly enunciated the common-law definition which has always been understood, albeit using language to clarify the intent:
“... 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 .”
The notion “naturalized at birth” is not obvious, but made necessary by the construction. The only natural citizens are those born, initially, to those who fought for our nationhood - our independence of subjection to a monarchy and its King - and born on our soil. Afterwords they were those born to citizens.
A problem facing our framers was the defintion of who would be citizens. Every sovereign state among the nine approving the Constituiton had its own rules for who were citizens of their state. To unite they needed to protect those already citizens in their states. As United states citizens need the freedom to preserve their legal rights across state laines. The problem was properly "punted" to Congress by Article 1 Section 8, ordering Congress to create "an Uniform Rule for Naturalization." The Constitution only defined one class of citizen, knowing that a president with allegiance to the Crown, which discribed the majority of former colonists, would surely undermine the fragile constitutional republic. The issue was allegiance. The first presidents had to have been residents for 14 years, three years before the declaration, insuring that they weren't opportunists - they fought or lived through the Revolutionary War. Every signer of the Declaration signed his death warrant if the revolution failed.
Read the naturalization requirements at US.gov immigration and naturalization web site. It is, perhaps intentionally, a bit devious in not clarifying that the four steps that define a “born citizen” cannot affect who are natural citizens. Natural born citizens have allegiance at birth. Citizens, meaning naturalized citizens since Congress now defines who they are willing to naturalize, “naturally inherit the allegiances of their fathers”, the citation from Vattel’s Law of Nations used by Jefferson, who also made that version of Law of Nations compiled by Vattel our first law book.
Read the Declaration again. It was obviously a direct challenge to the Common-Law of England. Jefferson explained that it was necessary “ ...to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Stations to which the Laws of Nature and of Natures’s God entitle them...” That came from “The Law of Nations, Or, Principles of the Law of Nature, Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns”, Vattel’s volume on natural law. Virtually every complaint listed in The Declaration is directly addressed and resolved in Law of Nations. Even judicial review, which was Incorporated later, was addressed in the work from 1758.
A child defined as a citizen at birth is not necessarily a natural born citizen. The difference is found in our appropriately termed “Oath of Allegiance”, the sworn commitment for naturalization:
“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the armed forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.”
That oath is why Obama is not a natural born citizen, even if he was born in Hawaii. His father had allegiance to another sovereignty. Those words comport with Bingham’s explanation of natural born citizens, and why they are not addressed by the 14th Amendment. We had no knowledge of the allegiance passed to those we enslaved. But having been born on our soil, having been brought here by force, they now had the choice to leave. Making them citizens was just and necessary. Congress had the authority to do that, from Article 1 Section 8. But Congress couldn't change Article II section 1, except by amendment, and they have never done so - for good reason. Their objective was to protect our citizens from someone whose allegiance was inconsistent with our freedoms. That is just what we got when we ignored Article II Section 1, allowing Obama to stay in the office for which he is not eligible.
I agree with that completely. But at the time of the signing of the Constitution, there were several common-law definitions of natural-born citizen.
Look, I thought the criticism of Coulter was over-the-top. Nothing more than that.
Geez, I've gotta learn to stop wading into these birther threads.
Why stop. We often learn something about our history; the contributors are often well informed and cogent, not to mention civilized (as differentiated from savages). On-the-other-hand having to think and respond carefully, and not get paid for it, is a real time sink.
As is all citizenship, if we understand "law" in all its forms, written and customary and moral.
The decision was entirely based upon the 14th Amendment, which nowhere uses the term natural born citizen. Furthermore, its principal author, John Bingham, clearly enunciated the common-law definition which has always been understood, albeit using language to clarify the intent ...
The decision was written by Horace Gray. He uses the phrase "natural born" citizen numerous times, and cites decisions and documents going back before the 14th Amendment to support his argument.
Justice Gray writes:
There is, therefore, little ground for the theory that, at the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, there as any settled and definite rule of international law, generally recognized by civilized nations, inconsistent with the ancient rule of citizenship by birth within the dominion.
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.
Wong Kim Ark was born to parents who weren't citizens, but the court, if I'm not mistaken, ruled that he was a citizen from birth. Because Wong Kim wasn't running for President there was now need to prove that he was or wasn't a natural born citizen or that natural born citizens were different from native born citizens from birth.
It's true that his birth here made him a US citizen in the court's eyes, but if we start distinguishing between hypothetical categories of people who became citizens at birth and those who were somehow citizens before they were born we'd go crazy. There is much controversy surrounding immigration and citizenship now, but hypothesizing different abstract categories of citizenship that didn't have much reality in our laws and our history doesn't look like the best way to rectify things.
The 14th Amendment begins: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States ..." This suggests that ideas of other kinds of citizenship other than birth citizenship or naturalized citizenship don't exist. To be pre-born or born a foreigner and naturalized by birth wasn't an option.
It continues " ... and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." In some ways this is similar to Bingham's "of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty" and in some ways it isn't. Bingham had the opportunity to work "not owing allegiance" into the amendment. He didn't. There must be a reason Congress wrote what it did. We have to go on what Congress actually passed and what the states actually ratified and what the judges actually decided.
Briefly, natural law was not something Vattel invented. There were many natural law theorists and thinkers going back through the centuries who said different things. Not every reference to natural law is a support or vindication of Vattel's theories. Nor was the Declaration of Independence a repudiation of the common law or Blackstone or Blackstone's ideas about citizenship. We are still (unless you live in Louisiana or Puerto Rico or a few other island territories) largely a common law country.
I never implied that Coulter was “comparable” and I pointed out that having a declared non-citizen father was not “conspiracy.”
IMO, Coulter does betray knowledge of Donofrio’s finding that Arthur's father was not a US citizen at his birth. Coulter pointed out the father's Ireland birth, not Chester's suspected Canadian birth.
Coulter is clearly drawing an analogy between Barry's UK subject father and Chester's UK subject father, exactly as Donofrio was the first to do.
Any discussion of Wong Kim Ark and Justice Gray's views on natural born citizenship must be held in the context of of Gray's first citation in his decsion, which was to Minor v. Happersett. Not only did he cite Minor, he quoted Waite's definition of natural born citizen in its entirety. He did not contravene Minor v. Happerersett, nor did he try. The tortured analysis of his feints and dodges are a waste of time. He said what he said. Supreme Court, and probably all legal construction would have rendered the decision moot long ago if he had directly contradicted himself. Construction wouldn't admit a statement conflicting with his own citation and quotation. He didn't contradict his citation. In fact his citation implies that Justice Gray considered Minor v. Happersett to have established precedent on the definition, a definition which was essential to the decision regarding Virginia Minor's right as a citizen to vote.
Second, it is always useful to recall the context of Gray's decision; Gray was appointed by Chester Arthur. If someone had raised the issue, though there has been no discovery yet that anyone before 2008 ever did, the issue of Arthur's father's immigration status, Gray, known as a scholarly justice, knew he could be put in an awkward position. I don't see how he could have heard the case, since ineligibility would have rendered Gray's appointment moot. As a Justice he could have queried the State Department, and might have, having been a close observer of the Minor decision only ten years before.
Wong was ruled a citizen at birth because he was born here, using the terminology and language of the 14th Amendment. American Indians were born on our soil and not made citizens, because their allegiance was to their own governments. Anchor babies were born on our soil, and, at least no yet, aren't considered eligible to the presidency, though the acceptence of "I am a native-born citizen of the US" by Obama, would render anchor babies as eligible as Barack. Gray cited the Minor precedent requiring citizen parents and birth on our soil, confirming the natural law repeated by Chief Justice Marshall, and in thirty or so other Supreme Court cases.
If you think English common law is the foundation for our legal system there is little chance of changing that perception because it is so completely at odds with our Revolution, rejecting British law, and at odds with the hundreds of founders and framers who explain why that is not the case. If you really are curious, read James Wilson's Lectures on the Law, in which he spends chapter after chapter destroying the illusion that the the English even have a coherent legal system, or that they have a Constitution. Read Thomas Paine's “Rights of Man” in which he explains “The presidency in America (or, as it is sometimes called, the executive) is the only office from which a foreigner is excluded, and in England it is the only one to which he is admitted.”
If we respected English Common Law Obama could not have been a Senator, since only natural born subjects are eligible to be Members of Parliament. Obama, having been born to a British father, could become a Member of Parliament. In England, the monarch married someone from another nation to create interdependence among the involved monarchies, I presume. Anyone else whose father was an alien can never be an MP. We are a nation of immigrants. Naturalized citizens may hold any office but the presidency, very much unlike the British, who have already begun to cede their legal system to Sharia. Like Obama, Sharia is full of conflicts with the Constitution.
The best thing Obama has done for our republic is to inspire many of us who knew little about foundation to spend some time to learn. Time for you to learn, if you are not committed to spreading misinformation. Followers of Islam, a religion, a totalitarian legal system, economic system and military rolled into one are penetrating our republic. Citizens must know what our freedoms are to protect them. Obama, whether or not he is a believer, had his education funded by a Saudi Prince. His father held no allegiance to our nation and that violates our Constitution. To let just that provision slip away because it is seldom invoked (only seven times between 2002 and 2007, not including McCaskill's two Senate actions in 2008 to change the interpretation so that McCain can shield Obama from eligibility questions) is foolhardy. We have a provision for amending the Constitution, but thus far, no one has amended Article iI Section 1, certainly not Horace Gray. He repeated and cited Chief Justice Waite's definition from Minor v. Happersett.
I don't have time to read the whole book. But I did find this:
The common law, as now received in America, bears, in its principles, and in many of its more minute particulars, a stronger and a fairer resemblance to the common law as it was improved under the Saxon, than to that law, as it was disfigured under the Norman government. How much it was disfigured, and why we should not receive it in its disfigured state, will appear from the following very interesting part of Sir William Blackstones Commentaries.
This attitude was not uncommon in the early republic. England had gone astray -- had been corrupted -- but we Americans could return to the roots of our system. Such thinking was why Thomas Jefferson studied Anglo-Saxon. Most of the Founders or Framers studied law when it largely meant reading Blackstone. They had great respect for the common law and did not replace it with another system.
I also find Wilson saying:
Slavery, or an absolute and unlimited power in the master over the life and fortune of the slave, is unauthorized by the common law . . . . The reasons which we sometimes see assigned for the origin and the continuance of slavery appear, when examined to the bottom, to be built upon a false foundation. In the enjoyment of their persons and of their property, the common law protects all.
That doesn't sound like he despises the common law, does it?
If we respected English Common Law Obama could not have been a Senator, since only natural born subjects are eligible to be Members of Parliament.
So far as I could find out, by the law of 1701 only natural-born subjects could sit in Parliament. That must have been changed since then, since American-born Waldorf and Nancy Astor and "Chips" Channon sat in Parliament in the 20th century. But "natural born" in Britain was defined in Blackstone's terms, rather than in Vattel's.
Second, it is always useful to recall the context of Gray's decision; Gray was appointed by Chester Arthur. If someone had raised the issue, though there has been no discovery yet that anyone before 2008 ever did, the issue of Arthur's father's immigration status, Gray, known as a scholarly justice, knew he could be put in an awkward position. I don't see how he could have heard the case, since ineligibility would have rendered Gray's appointment moot.
Six justices agreed with Gray, and they weren't all appointed by Chester Arthur.
Things could have been different. A different interpretation might have prevailed. But it didn't.
You're right, of course. Sometimes, though, my old, war-torn asbestos suit just isn't up to the job.
I am no authority on the subject, but, according to what I've read, English common law at the time of the Constitution's signing held that the parents of a "natural born" citizen did not necessarily have to be citizens, themselves -- but that the father resided in the country and had expressed his loyalty to the King.
There is also the fact that President Andrew Jackson was born of Irish immigrants and President Thomas Jefferson's mother was English. If signers of the Constitution saw no Constitutional issue with their foreign-born parents, then, perhaps, the issue is not as cut-and-dried as many FReepers want it to be.
I realize there have been several Supreme Court cases since the 18th century on the subject, but I am interested in the original intent of the framers. Just as with abortion rights, I care less about Roe v. Wade than I do about the fact that legislating reproductive medical procedures is not granted to the Federal government.
Issues such as this one cannot simply be what we wish them to be. There is history beyond the most pleasing court decision one can lay his hands on.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.