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 ...
“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."
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.