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
Jacques Ottawa

North York, Canada

#116619 Oct 12, 2012
Johannes wrote:
<quoted text>
We Vikings got here first.
Did the Vikings sail across "the pond"?. Best ask LRS.

“zero nuclear weapons”

Since: Sep 08

Perryville

#116620 Oct 12, 2012
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

“Stuffs gettin better ”

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

#116621 Oct 12, 2012
"When a wise man debates with a fool,the fool rages and laughs, and there is no peace and quiet"
Proverbs 29:9

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-NMxIzJ-ieao/UHgQJvw...

"President Starky says stuff's gettin better"
2012
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

#116622 Oct 12, 2012
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>Doesn't matter he offered it and was accepted in its entirety as offered, now law of the land.
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.
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#116623 Oct 12, 2012
Terri Tanna wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
"Because he understood", he sure did. He wanted another class of people for cheap labor, and to validate all of the Europeans living here that were not citizens.
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.

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) 53 min Tony Rome 1,115,621
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 1 hr Brian_G 47,068
Minimum Wage and Unemployment Model 4 hr Goh 1
IL Who do you support for Governor in Illinois in ... (Oct '10) 4 hr Top of the Heap 4,054
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 5 hr KiMerde 50,063
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 5 hr Mister Tonka 98,373
Group of thieves hit Bentley Gold Coast store 6 hr Go Blue Forever 4
Chicago Dating
Find my Match

Chicago Jobs

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 ]