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

Full story: Chicago Tribune

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 ...

Comments (Page 5,163)

Showing posts 103,241 - 103,260 of173,579
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116399
Oct 11, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116400
Oct 11, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116401
Oct 11, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Beer time!
Jacques Ottawa

Toronto, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116403
Oct 11, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116404
Oct 11, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116405
Oct 11, 2012
 

Judged:

3

2

2

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

RationalState

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116406
Oct 11, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116407
Oct 11, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116409
Oct 11, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116410
Oct 11, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116411
Oct 11, 2012
 

Judged:

3

2

1

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

RationalState

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116412
Oct 11, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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."
Johannes

Yucaipa, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116414
Oct 11, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
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!
Of course Obama lied. He's a dem right? So he must be a liar.

Where is the video that you claim? Let's just start there.

“SAVING BIRTHERS FROM IGNORANCE”

Since: Jul 09

The Farm North of Hinsdale

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116416
Oct 11, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

America Got Stupid wrote:
I asked for PROOF!
I asked for PROOF that a state-issued birth document has any bearing on presidential eligibility. FOR FOUR YEARS YOU HAVE SHOWN YOU ARE AN INTELLECTUAL COWARD AND A BULLY BY FAILING TO CITE ANY CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION, ANY COURT CASE, ANY STATUTE, ANY LEGAL OR POLITICAL TRADITION THAT REQUIRES A STATE-ISSUED BIRTH DOCUMENT. Where is Abraham Lincoln's state-issued birth document? Where is Grover Cleveland's? Where is Millard Fillmore's?
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116417
Oct 11, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

America Got Stupid wrote:
<quoted text>
Prove what you say!
Prove what YOU say. You say that an embossed seal comes out on a PDF scan. Well, show a scan of a Hawaii long form birth certificate put into PDF with the raised seal visible. Well, prove it.

Your claim is that although this certificate exists and although the officials in Hawaii stated that they sent both the short form and the long form version of it to him, and although they have repeatedly confirmed the facts on it, and despite a reporter having said that she felt the seal on it--that both the officials in Hawaii and the reporter who said that she felt the raised seal are lying simply because the embossed seal does not show up on a PDF scan.

Well, prove it. Prove that a Hawaii raised seal on a long form BC scanned and put into PDF shows up.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116418
Oct 11, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>you try carrying a concealed weapon in a state that does not reciprocate and see who's jurisdiction wins.
Remainder of your post is irrelevant.
Huh?

In either case, the state where you carry has jurisdiction.

RU daft?
Terri Tanna wrote:
"Is a California resident subject to the jurisdiction of Massachusetts when visiting the Bay State?
"Is a California corporation subject to the jurisdiction of Massachusetts when doing business there?"
====
<quoted text>
How embarrassingly lame is your scholarship.
Concealed carry has absolutely nothing to do with jurisdiction. Please answer the two very straight-forward questions posed that any first month law student could answer with citation to specific cases. HOW PATHETIC THAT YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT THIS IMPORTANT SUBJECT THAT YOUR BROUGHT UP IN THE FIRST PLACE.
Please name the most famous cases in our great 800-year tradition of Anglo-American jurisprudence that have established the parameters of jurisdiction. Thank you.
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116419
Oct 11, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>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.
So, Howard, one guy (important, but not the sole expert in Congress) said it. One guy.

The US Supreme Court did not believe that his view represented the majority of the members of Congress, much less the thousands who voted for the 14th Amendment in the state legislatures.

They believe that the meaning comes from the common law and refers to the place of birth, and their decision is FINAL (unless overturned by another SC decision or by a Constitutional Amendment, neither of which is even remotely likely.)

“SAVING BIRTHERS FROM IGNORANCE”

Since: Jul 09

The Farm North of Hinsdale

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116420
Oct 11, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

"Socialism is often associated with Atheistic tendencies, and as an Atheist-Socialist it’s ironic I have to remind people that many Socialist grassroots groups, especially originating in France, were Christian Socialists. Determined and sure that the general philosophy of Marx was the practice of the divine philosophy laid down by Jesus so many centuries ago. One only has to look in the Bible itself to reinforce such ideas:
=
Acts 2:42 – 45: 42 And they continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers. 44 And all that believed were together, and had all things in common; 45 And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.
Acts 4:32-37: 32 And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common. 33 And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all. 34 Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, 35 And laid them down at the apostles’ feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need. 36 And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas,(which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus, 37 Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles’ feet.
Acts 5:1-10, is perhaps the most blatant and relevant evidence that the Apostles and early Christians did not view Communism as something optional:
1 But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession, 2 And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles’ feet. 3 But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land? 4 Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God. 5 And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things. 6 And the young men arose, wound him up, and carried him out, and buried him. 7 And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in. 8 And Peter answered unto her, Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much? And she said, Yea, for so much. 9 Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out. 10 Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost: and the young men came in, and found her dead, and, carrying her forth, buried her by her husband.
Luke 1:49-53: 49 For he that is mighty hath done to me great things; and holy is his name. 50 And his mercy is on them that fear him from generation to generation. 51 He hath showed strength with his arm; he hath scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts. 52 He hath put down the mighty from their seats, and exalted them of low degree. 53 He hath filled the hungry with good things; and the rich he hath sent empty away.
ETC.

“SAVING BIRTHERS FROM IGNORANCE”

Since: Jul 09

The Farm North of Hinsdale

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116421
Oct 11, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Justice Dale wrote:
Damn, I just can't see English common law in the above. I wonder where Gray got that idea?
Because he understood -- as does anyone who has ACTUALLY studied The Law (unlike the impeached "justice")-- that legislative colloquy (the only irrelevant quote the obsessive legal ignoramus knows) means nothing under the 800-years of Anglo-American jurisprudence about which the legal ignoramus knows ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
=
How come he cannot name a single legal scholar or international law scholar with whom he has studied or ANY LEGAL TREATISE he has ever studied? All he offers is his own uneducated and uninformed bias -- nothing related to the Rule of Law and legal method that every one of our revered Founders and Framers followed in drafting our sacred United States Constitution.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116422
Oct 11, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>They are not subject to the jurisdiction of the Constitution. To be so, they would have all the rights an privileges as a citizen of the US.
Ipse dixit fallacy.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Sorry, but the US decides what rights and privileges aliens have per US law, according to its sovereign authority.
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Whoop-dee-do!
That has nothing to do with the fantasy that ordinary aliens are not under the jurisdiction of the US while in this country.
You could just have well said "the rain in Spain falls mainly in the plain."
Grow up!

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 103,241 - 103,260 of173,579
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

24 Users are viewing the Chicago Forum right now

Search the Chicago Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 7 min Eran Levi - Israel 67,524
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 9 min Homer 1,071,799
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 13 min edogxxx 97,434
Abby 7-11 16 min edogxxx 1
IL Who do you support for Governor in Illinois in ... (Oct '10) 17 min george 3,814
Amy 7-11 20 min edogxxx 1
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 3 hr lol 48,683
•••
•••
•••
•••

Chicago Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Chicago News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Chicago
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••