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 5,178)

Showing posts 103,541 - 103,560 of173,783
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116728
Oct 12, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

President Starky wrote:
<quoted text>
You're the one who accused him of not buying it, prove it.
Accused?

Sort of like the defense attorney who "accused" his client of being not guilty.

Hee hee hee!

“Stuffs gettin better ”

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116729
Oct 12, 2012
 

Judged:

2

1

1

LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Why is the government meddling in the church anyway?
I guess the government is begging to be overthrown and a large number of people occupying our country need to be purged from this land.
That's got to be the reason.

I'd like to know why Muslims are exempt from Obamacare.
What happened to equal protection under the law?

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116731
Oct 12, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>by treaty!
By treaty, according to birfoon play law.

Exceptions are introduced by treaty, Duh!

“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.” Amy v. Smith, 11 Ky. 326, 340 (Ky. 1822).

Play law doesn't count.
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.

“Stuffs gettin better ”

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116733
Oct 12, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

dem wrote:
<quoted text>
Evening, ma'am.
You're that pervert who keeps changing his name.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116734
Oct 12, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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.
Play law doesn't count.

"temporary allegiance. The impermanent allegiance owed to a state by a resident alien during the period of residence."
Black's Law Dictionary, 9th Edition.

“...of the compact also redound to aliens residing within the territory of the United States, who are deemed to owe TEMPORARY ALLEGIANCE to the United States and thereby are entitled to the reciprocal protections of the Constitution. See United States v. Barona....”(emphasis added)
Ashkir v. U.S., 46 Fed.Cl. 438, 2000 WL 348805, Fed.Cl., April 04, 2000 (NO. 96-351L).
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>

“zero nuclear weapons”

Since: Sep 08

Perryville

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116735
Oct 12, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
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
<quoted text>
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.
Read The Art of War by Sun Tzu
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116737
Oct 12, 2012
 

Judged:

2

1

1

LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Mobarf, do you know how ludicrous your attempted mocking of me looks? Why yes mobarf, I think the conspiracy began as far back as the 1700s. Sounds quite stupid, don't you think? So, I take it you simply choose to ignore the "and not subject to any foreign power" phrase? Is that correct? And you are aware that this was national law in 1866? Is this correct? This law was intended to prevent exactly what you're trying to say it "is" for. This idea of anyone born on U.S. soil is automatically a U.S. citizen is simply incorrect. You're either ignoring this fact or you're not understanding what it is you're reading. Play your word and twisted half truths game with someone else.
Re: " choose to ignore the "and not subject to any foreign power" phrase? "

The obvious reason to ignore it is that it is not in the 14th Amendment. It is in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 but NOT in the 14th, which was passed in 1868, two years later, and which includes the words "subject to the jurisdiction."

Under strict construction if a law or an amendment does not say "and not subject to any foreign power" it does not mean "not subject to any foreign power."

So what does "subject to the jurisdiction" mean? The US Supreme Court decided, along with such Congressional leaders as Bingham and Trumbull, that it refers to the common law meaning of jurisdiction, being subject to the laws. So the US Supreme Court ruled that every child born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats is a Natural Born Citizen.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116738
Oct 12, 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 (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?
Too bad for BirfoonBoy, but Senator Howard considered persons born within the limits of the United States and subject to their laws to be born citizens. His understanding of "natural law and national law" incorporated the jus soli principle from English common law:

“They became such in virtue of national law, or rather natural law which recognizes persons born within the jurisdiction of every country as being subjects or citizens of that country. Such persons were, therefore, citizens of the United States as were born in the country or were made by naturalization.” Senator Jacob Howard, Cong. Globe 39th Cong., 1st Sess, 2765 (1866).

“A citizen of the United States is held by the courts to be a person who was born within the limits of the United States and subject to their laws.” Senator Jacob Howard, Cong. Globe 39th Cong., 1st Sess, 2765 (1866).

Sorry, loser.
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116739
Oct 12, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

America Got Stupid wrote:
<quoted text>Romney's Father was a US Natural born citizen at birth despite being born in Mexico, making his son Mitt a Natural born citizen at his birth as well.
Obama has a Father who was NEVER a US citizen, MORON!
It is certainly debatable that Romney's father was a Natural Born Citizen if he was born in Mexico.

“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.]

However, there is no doubt whatever that both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama are Natural Born Citizens because they were both born in the USA, and the original meaning of Natural Born certainly includes every child born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats. It MAY include others too, such as McCain, but it CERTAINLY includes every child born in the USA regardless of the citizenship of their parents.

“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).

"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)

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116740
Oct 12, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

President Starky wrote:
<quoted text>
Funny but I feel no burden.
You don't feel the egg sticking to your face either.
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
So juvenile.
Jagoff Birfoon: "It would be an incredible coincidence that a man who lived and went to a muslim school in a muslim country had a muslim father would accidentally PURCHASE A RING with the muslim saying that there is no god but allah."
You made the claim. The burden is on YOU.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116741
Oct 12, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
And you, you go on people facebook page and then his daughters. What a pervert you are!
Johannes wrote:
<quoted text>
You pimp your daughter and you call me the pervert?
Get Real!!!
No, YOU are accusing me of pimping my daughter. Tell us, do you pimp your wife? Now I am not accusing you of doing so and even if I had your, or her, facebook page I would not go on it.
But that is the problem with perverts like you. Nothing is beyond you.
Just look at Sarah Palin's daughter? Oh, it is not that she got pregnant but because she did not get an abortion is what upsets you.
If fact, you probably don't have any children as most Libtards I know as so self centered, they don't want any. Sad, very sad.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116742
Oct 12, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

President Starky wrote:
<quoted text>
Since you accused him of not buying it, the burden falls on you.
Huh?

Please point to any statement wherein I stated whether he did or did not buy the ring.

UR nuts.

You assumed he bought the ring. Burden is on you.
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
So juvenile.
Jagoff Birfoon: "It would be an incredible coincidence that a man who lived and went to a muslim school in a muslim country had a muslim father would accidentally PURCHASE A RING with the muslim saying that there is no god but allah."
You made the claim. The burden is on YOU.
LRS

Shreveport, LA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116743
Oct 12, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Grand Birther wrote:
Obama campaign office shot at in Denver today.
Probably by a well-adjusted conservative like Rogue Bumpkin or LRS.
Barfer Girks, was happnin' cuz? Hey, that wasn't very nice. You know that building gets shot at everyday.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116744
Oct 12, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

nebka wrote:
<quoted text>
Read The Art of War by Sun Tzu
Have you? Then I guess that makes you an expert. Can you tell us how we defeated the Japanese during WWII? Who underestimated who?
The ONLY thing that prevent us from winning the Vietnam War by 1965 was Washington D.D. and the f-ing Democrats.
That is right. LNJ and Robert McNamara were picking out bombing targets. We were not allowed to bomb a SAM site while it was being built out of fear by LBJ that some Russian might have got hurt. So when they did finish the SAM site our bombers had to fly down the throat of SAM's!!!
Go back to your books as you missed something! But then again, you can't learn commonsense.
LRS

Shreveport, LA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116745
Oct 12, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Jacques Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
You have it in reverse. You should ask what the church is doing in the government and on dollar bills.
Reverse sounds about for you jacqazz.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116746
Oct 12, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Grand Birther wrote:
Obama campaign office shot at in Denver today.
Probably by a well-adjusted conservative like Rogue Bumpkin or LRS.
Or he was troll for , ah er, gays to pick up like Kal Penn did in DuPont Cir in DC two years ago.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116747
Oct 12, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Mobarf, do you know how ludicrous your attempted mocking of me looks? Why yes mobarf, I think the conspiracy began as far back as the 1700s. Sounds quite stupid, don't you think? So, I take it you simply choose to ignore the "and not subject to any foreign power" phrase? Is that correct? And you are aware that this was national law in 1866? Is this correct? This law was intended to prevent exactly what you're trying to say it "is" for. This idea of anyone born on U.S. soil is automatically a U.S. citizen is simply incorrect. You're either ignoring this fact or you're not understanding what it is you're reading. Play your word and twisted half truths game with someone else.
Senator Howard was also aware of the law in 1866.

“They became such in virtue of national law, or rather natural law which recognizes persons born within the jurisdiction of every country as being subjects or citizens of that country. Such persons were, therefore, citizens of the United States as were born in the country or were made by naturalization.” Senator Jacob Howard, Cong. Globe 39th Cong., 1st Sess, 2765 (1866).

“A citizen of the United States is held by the courts to be a person who was born within the limits of the United States and subject to their laws.” Senator Jacob Howard, Cong. Globe 39th Cong., 1st Sess, 2765 (1866).

So was the circuit court in Look Tin Sing and the USSC in Wong Kim Ark and in numerous other cases.

Children of ordinary aliens born in the US are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and not to any foreign power. Children born to foreign ambassadors are born subject to foreign powers.

That's the law.

Play law doesn't count.
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
“The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not.” Lynch v. Clarke, 3 NY Leg. Obs. 236, 246 (N.Y. Ch. 1844).
Chancellor Sandford was biased for President Obama in 1844?
“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. Bingham, The Congressional globe, Volume 61, Part 2. pg. 2212 (1869). Oops, more pro Obama bias?
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.”
Wow, pro Obama bias in 1805!
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.”
More pro Obama bias in 1822!

Since: Oct 09

Moreno Valley, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116748
Oct 12, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Looking at it wrote:
<quoted text>
Duh?
I think creating jobs would be a start to weed out the working homeless from the hand-out waiting homeless.
Let me guess you voted for Oslacker?
Its because of actions and thoughts like yours that we have had to endure 3 plus years of total lunacy in Washington. What a farce he turned out to be, much worse then anyone could have imagined.
Fortunately thats all about to change. The novelty is gone and he will follow!
Creating jobs how by giving the rich more tax cuts? Obviously if that worked unemployment would have never peaked at 10 percent. Romney has no plan to create jobs nor does he need one.

“Moody’s Analytics, in an August forecast, predicts 12 million jobs will be created by 2016, no matter who is president. And Macroeconomic Advisors in April also predicted a gain of 12.3 million jobs.

In other words, this is a fairly safe bet by Romney, even if he has a somewhat fuzzy plan for action. We have often noted that presidents are often at the mercy—or the beneficiary—of broad economic trends and Romney’s pledge appears to be an effort to take advantage of that”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-...

Nice of you to at least recognize that there are in fact working homeless. That's more than I can say for Romney.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116751
Oct 12, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Grand Birther wrote:
Obama campaign office shot at in Denver today.
Probably by a well-adjusted conservative like Rogue Bumpkin or LRS.
You do know that both Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and George C. Wallace were shot by DEMOCRATS, don't you?
LRS

Shreveport, LA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#116752
Oct 12, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Re: " choose to ignore the "and not subject to any foreign power" phrase? "
The obvious reason to ignore it is that it is not in the 14th Amendment. It is in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 but NOT in the 14th, which was passed in 1868, two years later, and which includes the words "subject to the jurisdiction."
Under strict construction if a law or an amendment does not say "and not subject to any foreign power" it does not mean "not subject to any foreign power."
So what does "subject to the jurisdiction" mean? The US Supreme Court decided, along with such Congressional leaders as Bingham and Trumbull, that it refers to the common law meaning of jurisdiction, being subject to the laws. So the US Supreme Court ruled that every child born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats is a Natural Born Citizen.
There's no way for you to get away from "not owing allegiance to any other foreign power". No way. And every baby born on U.S. soil is not a citizen of the U.S. Period.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 103,541 - 103,560 of173,783
|
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.

17 Users are viewing the Chicago Forum right now

Search the Chicago Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
IL Illinois Governor Recall Amendment (Oct '10) 13 min the plain truth 1,833
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 19 min shinningelectr0n 1,073,280
St. Vincent DePaul Store Thrift Store Moving to... 3 hr IsBerkotsCheaperthanJewel 4
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 4 hr Norton 48,701
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 4 hr No Warming 45,601
This is a great ad. 5 hr Harold B Alls 1
Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 9 hr voice of peace 67,553
•••
•••
•••
Chicago Dating

more search filters

less search filters

•••

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 ]
•••