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
103,841 - 103,860 of 177,531 Comments Last updated 1 hr ago

“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

RationalState

#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).

“SAVING BIRTHERS FROM IGNORANCE”

Since: Jul 09

The Farm North of Hinsdale

#117106 Oct 13, 2012
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
"If Obama has been responsible for the recovery of the stock market, he is responsible for the down turn!!!"
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
====
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!!!
==
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
Your post suggested a drop while Obama was president. The 58% drop was under G.Bush. Since that trough the administration's policies have created the largest rise in the U.S. equity markets (121%) in the first term of ANY president.
==
What does Apple have to do with anything? It is one stock.
Show the Class where the Market dropped 15% or more since March 2009.
Who cares what someone says may happen in the future? You make many foolish predictions that ALL prove to be false.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#117107 Oct 13, 2012
Terri Tanna wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
I would not be talking if I were you Tootsie. You think Mohammed is a Catholic profit?
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#117108 Oct 13, 2012
Terri Tanna wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
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.
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

#117109 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, fact.
Elk v. Wilkins (1884) was before the Wong Kim Ark case (1898). Later cases overturn earlier cases.
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#117110 Oct 13, 2012
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
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!
<quoted text>
Elk was born a citizen of a quasi Nation, Obama was born a citizen of a Nation.
Wall Street President

Melrose Park, IL

#117111 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!!!"<quoted text>
Your post suggested a drop while Obama was president. The 58% drop was under G.Bush. Since that trough the administration's policies have created the largest rise in the U.S. equity markets (121%) in the first term of ANY president.
==
What does Apple have to do with anything? It is one stock.
Show the Class where the Market dropped 15% or more since March 2009.
Who cares what someone says may happen in the future? You make many foolish predictions that ALL prove to be false.
The Stock Market went up because Bernanke printed trillions of dollars and threw it into Wall Street with Obama's blessing. Don't tell us you don't know about this, because even the Mainstream Media knew about this. Except they called it "Stimulus for the Economy." Any idea what all this has done to the dollar and the middle class? You are beyond clueless.
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#117112 Oct 13, 2012
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Elk v. Wilkins (1884) was before the Wong Kim Ark case (1898). Later cases overturn earlier cases.
no, Elk was not overturned.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

#117113 Oct 13, 2012
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>Very well could be, we have established he referred to natural law, would that be per Vattel's, Law of Nations.
Why do you ask? Can't you read?

“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).

You think that could be per Vattel? RU on LSD?
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.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 3 min Frijoles 69,093
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 4 min RACE 97,985
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 4 min paddyomalley 1,101,694
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 18 min JonahI 49,515
CHICAGO: 5-Dead, 42-Wounded In the 2014 Labor D... 1 hr YOUNG BLACK KILLERS 1
Obama promises more than 600,000 stimulus jobs (Jun '09) 2 hr OPERATION BID RIG 109,598
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 3 hr litesong 46,382
•••
•••

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 ]
•••