BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit ...

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

There are 207667 comments on the Chicago Tribune story from Jan 8, 2009, titled BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting Obama's citizen.... In it, Chicago Tribune reports that:

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

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

Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#117083 Oct 13, 2012
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
UR going in circles.
Birfoon: "sorry, the Constitution makes citizens now."
<quoted text>
In Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, the court was specifically asked to address “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” and held it meant:


The persons declared to be citizens are “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them (U.S.) direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts, or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired.

Obama was born a citizen of his father's nation a fact you can't change.

“SAVING BIRTHERS FROM IGNORANCE”

Since: Jul 09

The Farm North of Hinsdale

#117084 Oct 13, 2012
Terri Tanna wrote:
"PAUL RYAN IS EXCOMMUNICATED LATAE SENTENTIAE BY THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH WHILE LOSING THE ENTIRE CATHOLIC VOTE – BOTH CONSERVATIVE AND LIBERAL"
====
President Starky wrote:
Link?
LINK? There is no "link." How stupid.
I posted extensively earlier today from the exact words of the infallible doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church on the subject of killing children while they are still in the womb of their mothers. Please consult the widely-circulated documents of the Roman Catholic Church that are everywhere.
Do you need a link to know that Joe DiMaggio was a baseball player who was married to Marilyn Monroe?

“SAVING BIRTHERS FROM IGNORANCE”

Since: Jul 09

The Farm North of Hinsdale

#117085 Oct 13, 2012
President Starky wrote:
Link?
Not everything is a "link." How uneducated. Most of the important stuff is in that new media: PRINTED BOOKS!
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#117087 Oct 13, 2012
Grand Birther wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow, still going on about this, huh?
It's sad that you've not yet learned how wrong you are. It's worse that you do not understand our nation's laws.
You do realize that people more learned than yourself have more eloquently made similar arguments and have lost miserably, and for more than 125 years now too.
It must suck to be a birfer, Justice Derp.
In Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, the court was specifically asked to address “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” and held it meant:


The persons declared to be citizens are “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them (U.S.) direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts, or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired.

Obama was born a citizen of his father's nation, fact.

“SAVING BIRTHERS FROM IGNORANCE”

Since: Jul 09

The Farm North of Hinsdale

#117088 Oct 13, 2012
Justice Dale wrote:
The USSC did neither. The 14th is as it was in 1868, with all of the backup material.
BACK UP MATERIAL??
There is no such thing in legislation. The plain words of the statute speak for themselves without any annotation.
Did you miss the first 800-years of our grand tradition of Anglo-American jurisprudence, "justice?"

“SAVING BIRTHERS FROM IGNORANCE”

Since: Jul 09

The Farm North of Hinsdale

#117089 Oct 13, 2012
Justice Dale wrote:
I don't have to use Vattel, do I, Howard didn't, unless he was talking about Vattel when he stated natural law.
Where is natural law written down, so that EVERYONE can read it?
Why do you keep avoiding this most basic question? Is it because there is no natural law, that it is merely a construct?
Who do you think first described natural law? Do you have any background as a natural law theorist as many people who went to real colleges are?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#117090 Oct 13, 2012
Terri Tanna wrote:
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
"If Obama has been responsible for the recovery of the stock market, he is responsible for the down turn!!!"
Terri Tanna wrote:
What down turn? Please provide exact dates of any 10% or 15% decline in the U.S. equity markets. Thank you.
Easy, From October 2007 when the high in the DJIA was 14,090 until it bottomed out in March 2009 at 6,547 which is an OVER 50% drop!!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:DJIA_2000s_... (log).svg

And in the past three week AAPL has dropped 12% and the DJIA has dropped 2.2% and a significant number of experts expect a 10% correct before the election. And if it does, who's fault will it be? Remember, you have given Obama 100% of the credit for it's rise so will it be his fault if it corrects down 10% or more?
Jacques Ottawa

North York, Canada

#117091 Oct 13, 2012
Siouxweety wrote:
<quoted text>
You are lying.
Face it.
You got caught lying.
I have no idea how what I wrote us a lie. I made no statements. That is your response?
Oh, in my haste, the boards. Yes there are boards. Three come to mind. Abortion, specially underarge ones and pulling the plug on comatoze patients. And of individual psyschiatric treatment with, when possible, familial input. I'm glad we have them.

“SAVING BIRTHERS FROM IGNORANCE”

Since: Jul 09

The Farm North of Hinsdale

#117092 Oct 13, 2012
Are you sure you are not el grande "birther?" You seem to mimic his obsessively repetitive posting of debunked nonsense ("Why isn't there a raised seal on the pdf?")

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#117093 Oct 13, 2012
Siouxweety wrote:
<quoted text>
He said "Why is your president trying to get our healthcare system put into your country? Is he bonkers?"
Ya know they still have room for one more judge symbol in the lower right corner and I would like to see a fencing foil (for touche')!!!

“SAVING BIRTHERS FROM IGNORANCE”

Since: Jul 09

The Farm North of Hinsdale

#117094 Oct 13, 2012
Justice Dale wrote:
Aliens are not citizens, therefore not subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
By your OCD repetitive posting of debunked and unsupported legal theories, you resemble verdant tooth -- a completely ignorant and uneducated poster who was laughed off this thread because of her/his obvious lack of education beyond a GED.

“SAVING BIRTHERS FROM IGNORANCE”

Since: Jul 09

The Farm North of Hinsdale

#117095 Oct 13, 2012
Siouxweety wrote:
There is no determination for illegals!
They are deported right away.
So you do not support Willard&Paul on their advocacy of free market economic principles?
You must be some kind of a pinko socialist commie then.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#117096 Oct 13, 2012
Johannes wrote:
<quoted text>
Bla, bla, bla and more bla....
I take it that you want a truce? I will not mention any of your family members and you stay off of mine! Fair deal?
I don't like taking the low road but if that is where you want to go, I'll follow.
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#117097 Oct 13, 2012
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
“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).
U think he was "using" Vattel?
UR going in circles.
<quoted text>
Very well could be, we have established he referred to natural law, would that be per Vattel's, Law of Nations.

“SAVING BIRTHERS FROM IGNORANCE”

Since: Jul 09

The Farm North of Hinsdale

#117099 Oct 13, 2012
Siouxweety wrote:
You are lying.
Face it.
You got caught lying.
Please notice, Class, how the truly uneducated always know more about someone else's system or someone else's religion than do those who live under that system or practice that religion.
Classic attribute of those who have NO (zero, nada, not one iota of) education.

“SAVING BIRTHERS FROM IGNORANCE”

Since: Jul 09

The Farm North of Hinsdale

#117100 Oct 13, 2012
Justice Dale wrote:
Controlling enough to get the Citizenship Clause ratified in 1868.
Now the really stupid and uneducated one exposes for the entire Class to see he not only doesn't understand the legal construct of jurisdiction, but he is equally ignorant of the meaning of the term controlling in The Law.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#117101 Oct 13, 2012
Oh, this morning my girl friend and I went to Cracker Barrel for breakfast and met an older Greek couple who just moved to the U.S. and bought a house in the Tampa area. Yep, when the Socialists over spend, the well off just move. Why should they go down with the ship. They did not cause the leaks, the Unionists did!!!

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#117102 Oct 13, 2012
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>In Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, the court was specifically asked to address “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” and held it meant:
The persons declared to be citizens are “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them (U.S.) direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts, or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired.
Obama was born a citizen of his father's nation a fact you can't change.
You cannot change the fact that Ark was understood by the USSC to be under the COMPLETE jurisdiction of the United States at the time of his birth. Indeed, the Court cited Elk in its Opinion. Because Elk was born on an Indian reservation as a member of an Indian tribe, he was not under the complete jurisdiction of the US, even though within the boundaries of the United States.(If not a member of an Indian nation he would have been born a citizen, even if his parents were from any foreign country beyond the territorial limits of the US.)

Last time I checked, President Obama was not born on an Indian reservation in Hawaii as a member of an Indian tribe.

UR off-point.

According to Elk, even though he was born within the limits of the US, he was not under the complete jurisdiction of the US because, the Indian nations were "alien nations" within the borders of the US.

"[T]he Indian tribes, being within the territorial limits of the United States, were not, strictly speaking, foreign states, but were alien nations, distinct political communities, the members of which owed immediate allegiance to their several tribes."

Last time I checked, Kapiolani Hospital was not part of an Indian Nation within the borders of the US.

Grow up!
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
UR going in circles.
Birfoon: "sorry, the Constitution makes citizens now."

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#117104 Oct 13, 2012
y know, when Obama became Prez. way back in Ja. 2009 the U-3 Unemployment was 7.8%(U-6 was 14.2%) and last month the unemployment was down to .... 7.8% but the U-6 is still 14.7. Why is that?
I mean, do you know how much 0.5% is? Well, it is about A MILLION PEOPLE!!! Where did those million unemployed people go? Nowhere, they are still .... unemployed.
Yep, we still have 23 million unemployed Americans and you Libtrads think Obama has done a good job. Well, the people who are unemployed don't think so!!!
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#117105 Oct 13, 2012
Mobarf do you even read what you post? If you do, why do you constantly leave out parts? Such as; AND SUBJECT TO THEIR LAWS or AND NOT SUBJECT TO ANY FOREIGN POWER. Why do you forget these things? LMAO you're idiotic.

Oh, Bio Chemist....LMAO

“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).

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

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

Chicago Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 5 min DBWriter 1,348,215
last post wins! (Dec '10) 13 min Hatti_Hollerand 1,595
last post wins! (Apr '13) 48 min They cannot kill ... 622
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 56 min They cannot kill ... 7,330
Vice lords" 1 hr talkbecauseyoucantDo 1
Word (Dec '08) 2 hr Sweetie-Pie 5,655
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 4 hr Go Blue Forever 101,437
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages