BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit ...

BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting Obama's citizen...

There are 241592 comments on the Chicago Tribune story from Jan 8, 2009, titled BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting Obama's citizen.... In it, Chicago Tribune reports that:

The U.S. Supreme Court will consider Friday whether to take up a lawsuit challenging President-elect Barack Obama 's U.S. citizenship, a continuation of a New Jersey case embraced by some opponents of Obama's ...

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Chicago Tribune.

drink The Hive

New York, NY

#116386 Oct 11, 2012
1975:Travis Walton Alien Abduction Takes Place...

Johannes

Yucaipa, CA

#116388 Oct 11, 2012
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, so a unanimous vote makes something not a lie. There was no doubt about the attack on Pearl Harbor and at the time no one question the Gulf of Tonkin incident but that does not make it so either.
What is funny is that you seem to hate any war started by a Republican, but love any war done by a Democrat. Case in point, G. H.W. Bush had a majority approval of Congress to war against Saddamn Hussein but many of you claim he lied. Ergo the war was illegal. And then when G.W. Bush resumed the war you claimed he was illegal even though Congress had approved the war.
How long did the Barbary Pirate War last and were did the battles take us?
1) the point is that VietNam was supported by the repubs as well as the dems.

2) Well, there isn't much difference between a lie from LBJ and the support of Congress to start the VietNam war and a lie from Bush and the support of Congress to start a war with Iraq now is there?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#116389 Oct 11, 2012
Terri Tanna wrote:
President Starky wrote:
"Then again, maybe the U.S. taxpayer bought it like we have everything else rouge and Frank owns."
Just like you Tootsie, I used U.S. dollars. But for some reason you think drug dealers "earned" their money while people like me earned our money with service to our country.
You ask me why I have contempt for Obama but you have contempt for people like me and I never stole anything.
If you can read and write, thank a teacher.
If you can read and write in English, thank a Vet.!

But maybe you are upset that we Army dudes ruffed up your daddy during the Democrat Convention riots in Chicago in 1968?!?
Ellen1

Dedham, MA

#116390 Oct 11, 2012
LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
The court is wrong. His allegiance is the same as his father's. Thus, he owes allegiance only to his father's homeland. He should never be considered a U.S. citizen. TaTa you Buttflappers!
US law holds that a person has only one allegiance, and that is the the country where he is born. Consider a dual US/German citizen and say that he acts against the USA during WWII. If he were born in the USA, he can be tried for treason. If he is the son of US citizens but was born in Germany, he cannot be tried for treason. We, like the British before us, consider that allegiance cannot be divided DESPITE dual citizenship, and that the sole criterion of allegiance that WE use is the place of birth.

In a speech before the House of Representatives in May of 1789, James Madison said:

"It is an established maxim, that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general, place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States."
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#116391 Oct 11, 2012
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Visiting aliens are under the protection of the US while here, and reciprocally owe temporary allegiance to the US. According to OUR law, they cannot vote, and according to OUR law they are not eligible for the draft.
And if they violate OUR law, they are subject to the consequences.
Grow up!
<quoted text>
Bullshit, does that mean a child born here of a visiting alien is a temporary citizen. I can live with that, we just roundup their asses and send them home, where their citizenship is permanent.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

United States

#116392 Oct 11, 2012
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>All you can do is obfucate, you haven't an idea.
Thank you for admitting you do not have an answer.

Maybe after a beer run you can come up with another non sequitur.
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
There he goes again, with the treaty red herring.
I'm sorry, but if an alien were to rob a bank in Wichita, the right of the US to prosecute in federal court, and imprison the miscreant, would not depend upon any treaty.
If a foreign country's law stated that their citizens must obey US law while in the US, it would have no relevance to prosecution in the US. In addition to being liable to prosecution in the US, such foreign citizens would be liable to prosecution within their own country as well. Foreign law does not give the US permission to exercise its authority within its dominions.
Grow up!

“SAVING BIRTHERS FROM IGNORANCE”

Since: Jul 09

The Farm North of Hinsdale

#116395 Oct 11, 2012
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
If you can read and write in English, thank a Vet.!
But maybe you are upset that we Army dudes ruffed up your daddy during the Democrat Convention riots in Chicago in 1968?!?
What a crock!
This country has never been in danger of foreign invasion in that past 195 years.
====
You performed no service; you simply took money from the U.S. taxpayers without accomplishing a damn thing.
BTW, my Dad was in Viet Nam as a Marine in 1968.
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#116396 Oct 11, 2012
Terri Tanna wrote:
Terri Tanna wrote:
"What is the best treatise on jurisdiction (of all types -- in the broadest use of that term) that you can recommend to those in the Class who wish to become as learned as you?"
====
"NOW YOU PROVE YOURSELF TO BE A COMPLETE AND UTTER UNEDUCATED SIMPLETON.
"Please provide citations to at least three jurisdictional provisions in the Bible. Thank you.
"BTW, to which edition of the Bible are you referring? Please provide the date of the translation, the publisher, and page citations."
====
<quoted text>
Thus, the uneducated simpleton proves his ignorance. The Mosaic law has nothing (ZERO, NADA) to do with jurisdiction.
YES -- I challenge you to cite "all ten" "you shall nots."
DARE YOU to post TEN "you shall nots."
==
While you are citing the Bible (unidentified edition because you know absolutely nothing about sacred scripture), please tell the Class which of the Ten determines jurisdiction over a crash of a commercial airplane in Tennessee that took off from Laguardia with L.A. as the destination when the ticket was purchased by an Israeli national at ticket counter in New Jersey.
In identifying which of the Ten determines jurisdiction, you may use either Arabic or Roman numerals. Thank you.
hahaha!! I pissed you-off! Just pickup your toys and go home!
You might want to check and see if you are following the laws of God.
The remainder of you post is irrelevant.
Ellen1

Dedham, MA

#116399 Oct 11, 2012
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>Bullshit, does that mean a child born here of a visiting alien is a temporary citizen. I can live with that, we just roundup their asses and send them home, where their citizenship is permanent.
Not only is a child born here of visiting aliens a citizen, but she or he is a Natural Born Citizen.

The Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court ruling put it this way:

"It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

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."
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#116400 Oct 11, 2012
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you for admitting you do not have an answer.
Maybe after a beer run you can come up with another non sequitur.
<quoted text>
How's that water tasting, Spanky!
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#116401 Oct 11, 2012
Beer time!
Jacques Ottawa

Toronto, Canada

#116403 Oct 11, 2012
Ellen1 wrote:
the haters believe Corsi simply because that is what they want to believe, what they NEED to believe. As the story goes, guy's a closet Moslem and he goes around with "Allah is great" on a big ring. I suppose we can call Obama many things, and be right on some, but stupid's not one of them.
Jacques Ottawa

Toronto, Canada

#116404 Oct 11, 2012
President Starky wrote:
<quoted text>
I couldn't finish reading it.
I was getting hot and bothered. LOL
"Stuff's gettin better"
Gettinghot and bothered, eh? Couldn't finish it ,eh? Switched to your one and only lover, hellooooo, hand.
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#116405 Oct 11, 2012
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Not only is a child born here of visiting aliens a citizen, but she or he is a Natural Born Citizen.
The Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court ruling put it this way:
"It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.
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."
This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law (Civil Rights Act of 1866) a citizen of the United States. Mr. Howard

Damn, I just can't see English common law in the above. I wonder where Gray got that idea?

Oh, Mr. Howard offered the amendment, it was ratified in its entirety and made law.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

United States

#116406 Oct 11, 2012
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>International law is the set of rules generally regarded and accepted as binding in relations between states and nations, a treaty is a good example.
Hee hee hee! Why don't you read what your hero says?

Emmerich de Vattel:

Ҥ 84. Jurisdiction.

The sovereignty united to the domain establishes the jurisdiction of the nation in her territories, or the country that belongs to her. It is her province, or that of her sovereign, to exercise justice in all the places under her jurisdiction, to take cognisance of the crimes committed, and the differences that arise in the country.”

Hee hee hee!
Terri Tanna wrote:
<quoted text>
FALSE -- please tell the Class where international law is codified and what countries passed proper resolutions to abide by the codified international law. If it is not written where everyone has access to it, it is not LAW, and that makes you an ignorant and uneducated person who knows NOTHING about our sacred Constitution much less international law.
=
Dare you to tell the Class the name of any scholar with whom you have studied international law. Ha Ha Ha Ha

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#116407 Oct 11, 2012
Johannes wrote:
According to a new study, psoriatic arthritis will develop in 100% of the people who have been on the receiving end of anal sex.
I would expect a comment from someone like you. And I note that no one from the left has condemned you for the remark. Especially Jacques who claims to have a soft heart for people who have physical or mental issue.
Oh, the only thing that has been up my azz is a doctors gloved finger and two endoscopic. And I have never messed wit anyone elses azz hole as I know where the correct place to place my pecker is.
But I am into M&S and think it is funny when people like you go annal as I know you are intellectually bankrupt without a sane thing to say.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#116409 Oct 11, 2012
Johannes wrote:
<quoted text>
1) the point is that VietNam was supported by the repubs as well as the dems.
2) Well, there isn't much difference between a lie from LBJ and the support of Congress to start the VietNam war and a lie from Bush and the support of Congress to start a war with Iraq now is there?
That is correct. A lie is a lie. Now, what lie did Bush (which Bush) teell? Remember, to lie you must know what you are saying is untrue.
Like the attack on our embassy at Benghazi. The Dept. of State had live video from our embassy yep from the get go Obama's administration claimed it was a protest gone bad and not only is there no evidence of that, but there was no protest.
So Obama LIED about the protest at our Embassy at Benghazi!

“SAVING BIRTHERS FROM IGNORANCE”

Since: Jul 09

The Farm North of Hinsdale

#116410 Oct 11, 2012
Justice Dale wrote:
and see who's jurisdiction wins.
You must have gone to school for many years beyond high school to think that who's ("who is") is the same as whose.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#116411 Oct 11, 2012
Now who would do such a nasty thing? Some Conservative(s) or .... Occutard(s)? Conservatives usually do not stoop to sophomoric activities but occutards never get out of the gutters.
America Got Stupid wrote:
Pile Of Horse Manure Dumped On Ohio Dem Headquarters...
I think that they have changed their hope in Ohio.
Pile Of Manure Dumped On An Ohio Democratic Headquarters
By Ben Fearnow; October 11, 2012

Warren County, Ohio (CBS CLEVELAND)– A pile of political pranking was dumped on an Ohio Democratic headquarters early Tuesday morning.

Volunteers at the Warren County Democratic headquarters, just north of Cincinnati, were shocked and disappointed by a political prank unloaded on them early Tuesday morning – someone dumped a pile of horse manure in the parking lot of the headquarters building on US 42, just north of Lebanon.

Warren County Democratic chair Beth Goldenfield told CBS Local 12 news that the pile was dumped in the parking lot, blocking the entrance to the building, sometime between 10 p.m. Monday and 9 a.m. Tuesday.

A report was filed by the party with the Warren County sheriff’s department. Goldenfield says no one has claimed responsibility for the prank.
http://cleveland.cbslocal.com/2012/10/11/pile...

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

United States

#116412 Oct 11, 2012
LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
The court is wrong. His allegiance is the same as his father's. Thus, he owes allegiance only to his father's homeland. He should never be considered a U.S. citizen. TaTa you Buttflappers!
And James Madison was wrong?

“It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.”–James Madison

The court in Gardner v. Ward was wrong?
Garder v. Ward, 2 Mass. 244 (1805)
“The doctrine of the common law is that every man born within its jurisdiction is a subject of the sovereign of the country where he is born, and allegiance is not personal to the sovereign in the extent that has been contended for; it is due to him in his political capacity of sovereign of the territory where the person owing the allegiance as born.

Zephaniah Swift was wrong?
“that a man born within the jurisdiction of the common law is a citizen of the country wherein he is born. By this circumstance of his birth, he is subjected to the duty of allegiance which is claimed and enforced by the sovereign of his native land, and becomes reciprocally entitled to the protection of that sovereign, and to the other rights and advantages which are included in the term ‘citizenship.’” A System of the Laws of the State of Connecticut: Zephaniah Swift, In Six Book, pg. 163,167 (1795).

The high court of Kentucky was wrong in 1822?

Amy v. Smith, 11 Ky. 326, 340 (Ky. 1822)
“The country where one is born, how accidental soever his birth in that place may have been, and although his parents belong to another country, is that to which he owes allegiance. Hence the expression natural born subject or citizen, & all the relations thereout growing. To this there are but few exceptions, and they are mostly introduced by statutes and treaty regulations, such as the children of seamen and ambassadors born abroad, and the like.”

The Oregon District Court was wrong?
Ex parte Chin King 13 Sawyer 333 (Oregon District June 25, 1888).“By the common law, a child born within the allegiance —the jurisdiction—of the United States, is born a subject or citizen thereof, without reference to the political status or condition of its parents.”

Supreme Court Justice Noah H. Swayne was wrong, along with the concurring judges in the appellate court of Kentucky?

“All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England.… We find no warrant for the opinion that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States.” U. S. v. Rhodes, 1 Abb.U.S. 28, 1 Am. Law T. Rep. U.S. Cts. 22, 7 Am. Law Reg.(N.S.) 233, 27 F.Cas. 785, No. 16,151 (C.C.D.Ky. 1866)

But ignorant BirfoonBoy says they are all wrong throughout the history of this country.

Grow up!
Terri Tanna wrote:
<quoted text>
ABSOLUTELY CORRECT -- THIS HAS NEVER BEEN DISPUTED.
Of course, it has no bearing whatsoever on Obama's natural-born citizenship as was upheld by the action of the United States Supreme Court in Kerchner v. Obama (cert. denied 2010).
"Article III.
"Section. 1.
"The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Chicago Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 13 min obama muslim 1,548,652
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 4 hr SweLL GirL 10,841
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 5 hr Patriot AKA Bozo 63,855
Wee d & Meds in Chicago 9 hr Nancy 1
Why are White men obsessed with Latina women? (Feb '10) 14 hr Juanita 202
Negroes Shooting Negroes 14 hr Jimbob 4
In honor of Dad's 15 hr A Son 5

Chicago Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages