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

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 ... Full Story
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#116624 Oct 12, 2012
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Ipse dixit fallacy.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
Sorry, but the US decides what rights and privileges aliens have per US law, according to its sovereign authority.
<quoted text>
by treaty!
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

#116625 Oct 12, 2012
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>Sorry, I don't use de Vattel, to controversial. The 14th was nothing more than the Civil Rights Act of 1866, placed into the Constitution as an amendment.
"Subject to the jurisdiction,thereof" simply means, "not subject to any foreign power".
Subject to the jurisdiction of means having to obey the law of the United States. Everyone in the USA, citizens and aliens (both legal and illegal) has to obey the laws of the USA. Only foreign diplomats and their families do not, and they are the only ones in the USA that are not subject to the jurisdiction.

“Who does not know that every person born within the limits of the Republic is, in the language of the Constitution, a natural-born citizen.” Rep. John A. Bingham, The congressional globe, Volume 61, Part 2. pg. 2212 (1869)”
Jacques Ottawa

North York, Canada

#116626 Oct 12, 2012
nebka wrote:
Rouge has talk about wining in Nam, Sun Tzu had it right.
It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle.
We did not know the mindset of the Vietcong at all.
The military thought they could fight them like they had always in the past with others
The French tried that and lost
Well said, Nebka. And one other thing Rogue and so many like him forgot : Never underestimate your enemy. Never mock your enemy and always respect your enemy or (my addition) they will whup your sorry ass.
Jacques Ottawa

North York, Canada

#116627 Oct 12, 2012
And what is more, Vietnam heralded a new kind of war, a war where no nation, no matter its overwhelming numbers and armaments, will ever conquer another nation again. The Korean war was the last "conventional" war, well, sorta. If the surrender of the WW II Germans was happening today, the conventional war would continue underground and we'd call the resistants "terrorist", as in that kind of war, there are no holds barred. No more vanquished. Vietnam changed all that.
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#116628 Oct 12, 2012
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no such thing as a temporary citizen.
Sorry, BirfoonBoy, the child is born subject to the jurisdiction thereof, without regard to the parent's political condition (with the exception of foreign ambassadors, etc.) The child's citizenship does not depend upon the parent's condition. Never has, and unless there is an amendment, never will.
Sorry, that's the LAW. If you want to change it, get an amendment.
<quoted text>
and there is no such thing as temporary allegiance, all of that crap has been taken care of by treaty agreements.
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#116629 Oct 12, 2012
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Dream on. the US Supreme Court has the final decision, and it decided in the Wong Kim Ark case that every child born in the USA (except for those of foreign diplomats) is a Natural Born Citizen.
The USSC can't change the Constitution, they tried and failed. A redress will be coming soon.
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

#116630 Oct 12, 2012
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>and there is no such thing as temporary allegiance, all of that crap has been taken care of by treaty agreements.
Every child in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats is a Natural Born Citizen.

"Some birthers imagine that there is a difference between being a “citizen by birth” or a “native citizen” on the one hand and a “natural born” citizen on the other.“Eccentric” is too kind a word for this notion, which is either daft or dishonest. All three terms are identical in meaning." The Wall Street Journal.

“What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.”(Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)--Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT).

“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are "natural born citizens" and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are "natural born citizens" eligible to serve as President ..."---- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005)[Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

"Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity."---William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed.(1829)
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#116631 Oct 12, 2012
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Subject to the jurisdiction of means having to obey the law of the United States. Everyone in the USA, citizens and aliens (both legal and illegal) has to obey the laws of the USA. Only foreign diplomats and their families do not, and they are the only ones in the USA that are not subject to the jurisdiction.
“Who does not know that every person born within the limits of the Republic is, in the language of the Constitution, a natural-born citizen.” Rep. John A. Bingham, The congressional globe, Volume 61, Part 2. pg. 2212 (1869)”
Sorry visiting aliens do not come under the jurisdiction of the Constitution. Illegal aliens are "outlaws" and should be dealt with accordingly.
Under the 14th amendment as ratified in 1868, Bingham was right.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#116632 Oct 12, 2012
Terri Tanna wrote:
SOURCES
Mitt Romney's Abortion Evolution (ABC News)
Romney's abortion remarks bring issue back into focus Mitt Romney says abortion wouldn't be part of his legislative agenda, but later says he would fight it if he's elected (LA Times)
William Saletan (Slate): The Conversion -- How, when, and why Mitt Romney changed his mind on abortion and Romney’s Abortion “Agenda”-- Don’t fall for his insinuation that he won’t restrict abortion. It’s full of weasel words. and The Pro-life Case for Planned Parenthood
Romney, aides can't keep their story straight on reproductive rights (Steve Benen)
A Mitt Romney Abortion Timeline (Buzzfeed)
http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnis...
Hey Tootsie, I thought you said a few days ago, "I's all about the economy, Stupid"???
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

#116633 Oct 12, 2012
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>The USSC can't change the Constitution, they tried and failed. A redress will be coming soon.
Dream on. BY the way, they did NOT change the Constitution. This was the meaning of Natural Born Citizen shortly after it was written, in 1803:

"Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it. The first, by their birth-right, became entitled to all the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to none, but such as were held out and given by the laws of the respective states prior to their emigration....St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE'S COMMENTARIES: WITH NOTES OF REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA.(1803)

Notice that the term Natural Born Citizen refers to the place of birth, as used in the common law. It does not mention parents at all. Natural Born Citizens were "those born within the state."

And here is how it was used in 1829:

"Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity."---William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed.(1829)

And that is the way that Meese and Hatch and Graham use it too. And the seven state courts and one federal court that ruled on Obama, and the earlier cases cited.

There is not going to be a reversal because that is indeed what Natural Born Citizen means.
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#116634 Oct 12, 2012
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Every child in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats is a Natural Born Citizen.
"Some birthers imagine that there is a difference between being a “citizen by birth” or a “native citizen” on the one hand and a “natural born” citizen on the other.“Eccentric” is too kind a word for this notion, which is either daft or dishonest. All three terms are identical in meaning." The Wall Street Journal.
“What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.”(Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)--Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT).
“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are "natural born citizens" and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are "natural born citizens" eligible to serve as President ..."---- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005)[Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]
"Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity."---William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed.(1829)
This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already (Citizens Rights Act), 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) a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States.
Ratified in 1868.

Where is the English common law?
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

#116635 Oct 12, 2012
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>Sorry visiting aliens do not come under the jurisdiction of the Constitution. Illegal aliens are "outlaws" and should be dealt with accordingly.
Under the 14th amendment as ratified in 1868, Bingham was right.
Visiting aliens and illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of the USA because everyone IN the USA except for foreign diplomats and their families has to obey the law of the USA. Only those people who do not have to obey the laws of the USA are not subject to the jurisdiction of the USA.

The Notorious Rico has showed these cases:

Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886)
In Yick Wo v. Hopkins, a case involving the rights of Chinese immigrants, the Court ruled that the 14th Amendment's statement, "Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws," applied to all persons "without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality," and to "an alien, who has entered the country, and has become subject in all respects to its jurisdiction, and a part of its population, although alleged to be illegally here." (Kaoru Yamataya v. Fisher, 189 U.S. 86 (1903))

Wong Wing v. U.S.(1896)
Citing Yick Wo v. Hopkins, the Court, in the case of Wong Wing v. US, further applied the citizenship-blind nature of the Constitution to the 5th and 6th amendments, stating "... it must be concluded that all persons within the territory of the United States are entitled to the protection guaranteed by those amendments, and that even aliens shall not be held to answer for a capital or other infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law."

Plyler v. Doe (1982)
In Plyler v. Doe, the Supreme Court struck down a Texas law prohibiting enrollment of illegal aliens in public school. In its decision, the Court held, "The illegal aliens who are plaintiffs in these cases challenging the statute may claim the benefit of the Equal Protection Clause, which provides that no State shall 'deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.' Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is a 'person' in any ordinary sense of that term… The undocumented status of these children vel non does not establish a sufficient rational basis for denying them benefits that the State affords other residents."

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/rightsandfreedo ...
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#116637 Oct 12, 2012
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Hee hee.
Dale didn't see it until it hit him in the nose.(He still doesn't see it, even though the egg is stuck to his face and the crow is on his plate.)
Touché Terry.
That was entertaining.
sometimes I pay about as much attention to her post as I do yours.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#116640 Oct 12, 2012
nebka wrote:
Rouge has talk about wining in Nam, Sun Tzu had it right.
It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle.
We did not know the mindset of the Vietcong at all.
The military thought they could fight them like they had always in the past with others
The French tried that and lost
Jacques Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
Well said, Nebka. And one other thing Rogue and so many like him forgot : Never underestimate your enemy. Never mock your enemy and always respect your enemy or (my addition) they will whup your sorry ass.
You two are like Bobble-head Dolls. The only thing military you know is through radical lefty academics. The Democrats in Washington D.C. lost the Vietnam War and are responsible for the murder of over a half million unarmed Vietnamese and one and a half Cambodians.
I will never convince closed minded bigots like you two of that so luck read Karl.
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

#116641 Oct 12, 2012
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 (Citizens Rights Act), 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) a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States.
Ratified in 1868.
Where is the English common law?
Howard was just one of the members of Congress. That's all. The US Supreme Court did not believe that his not mentioning the common law was agreed to by the other members of Congress who voted for the bill, and there is good evidence that they didn't.

“Who does not know that every person born within the limits of the Republic is, in the language of the Constitution, a natural-born citizen.” Rep. John A. Bingham, The congressional globe, Volume 61, Part 2. pg. 2212 (1869)”

Who was the actual author of the citizenship clause? Senator Lyman Trumball.

And here is what Senator Lyman Trumball said:

“By the terms of the Constitution he must have been a citizen of the United States for nine years before he could take a seat here, and seven years before he could take a seat in the other House ; and, in order to be President of the United States, a person must be a native-born citizen. It is the common law of this country, and of all countries, and it was unnecessary to incorporate it in the Constitution, that a person is a citizen of the country in which he is born. I read from Paschale's Annotated Constitution, note 274:‘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. There are two exceptions, and only two, to the universality of its application. The children of ambassadors are, in theory, born in the allegiance of the powers the ambassadors represent, and slaves, in legal contemplation, are property, and not persons.”—Sen. Trumbull, Cong. Globe. 1st Session, 42nd Congress, pt. 1, pg. 575 (1872)

There is the common law, and obviously Tucker and Rawle who wrote in 1803 and 1829 respectively believed that the term Natural Born comes from the common law, and that is that six justices of the US Supreme Court agreed to in the Wong Kim Ark case, and their decision is final.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#116642 Oct 12, 2012
Nearly 100 years ago Argentina was one of the most wealthy countries on this earth ...... and then came Socialism in the form of Fascism. And the rest is history. Will America become another Argentina?

Don't Cry For Me Argentina: July 28, 2011 -

By Anna Edgerton

Argentina knows crises. In December of 2001 the doors of the banks were shuttered, 26 people were killed in violent protests across the country, and President De la Rua was evacuated from the presidential palace in a helicopter. A few months later the country defaulted, and the $93 billion it couldn’t afford to pay was the biggest default in history.

Now the United States is poised to break that record. It owes $14 trillion and has to borrow more to pay the bills that come due starting August 2nd. If the debt ceiling—an arbitrary number set by congress limiting how much the country can borrow—is not raised in less than a week, the size of U.S. default and the ensuing effect on the world’s finances will dwarf Argentina’s example.

That the most powerful nation in the world should find itself in this predicament is baffling to those who survived the implosion of the Argentine economy 10 years ago. From the outside, the United States seems like “the monster that controls everything,” says Horacio Rovelli, Argentina’s national director of macroeconomic policy. He points out that the United States has an enormous economy, the world’s reserve currency, and the headquarters of the IMF and the World Bank in Washington DC, all of which gives the North American “monster” a privileged position in the global economy. The current U.S. debt crisis for an Argentine looks absurd and unnecessary.

The financial crisis of 2008 shook the foundations of the U.S. economy, but it still has some “relative advantages over the rest of the world,” says Daniel Szpigiel, a professor of economics at University of La Matanza in Buenos Aires. The U.S. business culture is efficient and responsible, enforced by a judicial system that is widely trusted. Bureaucracy at all levels is straightforward and largely free of overt corruption. The government is unlikely to be overthrown by a dictator or a populist coup. Until recently, there was ample capital for entrepreneurs to enact ideas that for a long time made the United States the world’s capital of innovation.

Argentina on the other hand was just seventeen years in after a military dictatorship when the annual inflation in March of 1990 was 20,262 percent, a period of the most soaring hyperinflation. Pegging the peso to the dollar enabled Argentina to curb inflation. Without the ability to manipulate its own currency, however, Argentina had one less tool to maintain economic equilibrium and competitiveness in foreign markets. It wound up borrowing more from the IMF, twice in the first half of 2001, and found itself paying an unsustainable 88.3 percent of GDP in interest on its debt.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#116643 Oct 12, 2012
A default was all but necessary, and painful. When President Nestor Kirchner, the deceased husband of the current president, Cristina Kirchner, restructured Argentina’s debt in March 2005, the country’s creditors (besides the IMF, who was paid in full) had to accept 35 cents on the dollar. This move marginally raised Argentina’s standing on the international economic stage, but its sovereign credit rating had been wrecked by political turmoil and default.“They won’t see you with good eyes,” said Rovelli of potential investors,“they’ll remember what your conduct was like before.”

It is difficult to directly apply lessons from Argentina’s default to the ongoing crisis in the United States. Argentina’s economy has been growing by seven to nine percent for the past seven years, although the strength of their recovery should be attributed more to high commodity prices and China’s demand for soy—of which Argentina is the world´s third largest producer—than to debt restructuring. Moreover, Argentina has never had a strong culture of banks lending to individuals or small businesses. In the United States, these sectors of the economy would be the first ones to be affected by a default, because a downgrading of its sovereign credit rating would result in higher interest rates. In some ways, the U.S. economy has more to lose and less immediate recourse for recovery.

The U.S. government somewhat resembles Homer Simpson, suggested Rovelli,“He has his wife and his house and everything, but he’s completely useless.” That the United States—the all-powerful monster—is being likened to a beer-guzzling cartoon character changes the dynamics of the global economic game, challenging the United States’ position of authority.

Alberto José Francomano, an Argentine economist and fiscal analyst says despite the force the U.S. exerts on the world, especially through military and economic means, it doesn’t even have “the most basic political coordination.” The rest of the world is watching, not just out of curiosity over how the United States will solve its internal issues, but also because of the adverse effects the actions of a few intransigent American politicians might have on the wealth of the world.

The headlines in Argentina ask "What would happen to us if the U.S. defaults?” The global economy is still reeling from a crisis that began with U.S. economic ills. An unnecessary default would indicate that U.S. political realm is sick as well.
http://www.worldpolicy.org/blog/2011/07/28/do...
O no the boogy man

Lansing, IL

#116644 Oct 12, 2012
O no!! say it inst so, Blah Blah... Mittens will save you ...
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#116645 Oct 12, 2012
Johannes wrote:
<quoted text>
Never a reply that addresses the topic.
Never a reply that disputes the previous comment.
Never a reply with any substance.
Always a reply with namecalling.
Always a reply with a personal attack.
Always a reply that is worthless.
And how would you describe this post of yours Pops? goofball
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#116646 Oct 12, 2012
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Subject to the jurisdiction of means having to obey the law of the United States. Everyone in the USA, citizens and aliens (both legal and illegal) has to obey the laws of the USA. Only foreign diplomats and their families do not, and they are the only ones in the USA that are not subject to the jurisdiction.
“Who does not know that every person born within the limits of the Republic is, in the language of the Constitution, a natural-born citizen.” Rep. John A. Bingham, The congressional globe, Volume 61, Part 2. pg. 2212 (1869)”
Is that really your understanding of 'subject to the jurisdiction of'? LMAO
You don't need to ever attempt to play "Are You Smarter Than A Fifth Grader". LOL Your interpretation is idiotic at best!

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
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 11 min Bluestater 1,156,079
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 51 min Earthling-1 49,340
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 52 min KiMerde 51,294
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 1 hr JOEL 71,260
1 dead, 2 others wounded in shootings on South ... 1 hr reality is a crutch 1
last post wins! (Apr '13) 1 hr Hatti_Hollerand 406
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 1 hr Hatti_Hollerand 4,921
Chicago Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

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 ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 4:00 am PST

Bleacher Report 4:00AM
Colts' Complete Week 17 Preview vs. Titans
Bleacher Report 6:00 AM
Bears vs. Vikings: What Experts Are Saying About Chicago
NBC Sports 6:03 AM
Jim Caldwell: No concerns about starting a rookie center
Bleacher Report 8:46 AM
What Are Experts Saying About Vikings?
NBC Sports11:28 AM
Bears extend Roberto Garza through 2015