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
104,201 - 104,220 of 177,542 Comments Last updated 10 min ago
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#117554 Oct 15, 2012
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Legal allegiance. Some people who were born in the USA with three generations of US citizens before them turned out to be spys and traitors. The law is based on legal allegiance.
You do agree that Omama's father was a foreigner don't you?
Grand Birther

Brooklyn, NY

#117555 Oct 15, 2012
Butthurt Loser wrote:
What part of this are you unable to comprehend? I put quotation marks around two keywords for ya. Try as you may you cannot get away from "not subject to any foreign power".
During the original debate over the amendment Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan—the author of the Citizenship Clause[8]—described the clause as having the same content, despite different wording, as the earlier Civil Rights Act of 1866, namely, that it excludes Native Americans who maintain their tribal ties and "persons born in the United States who are "foreigners", "aliens", who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers."[
Lol, the court in Ark destroyed this silly argument, Barfer Girks.

Moreover, colloquy is INADMISSIBLE.

Not only are you WONG, you're arguing the LOSING side again. It's been settled for over 100 years.
Just Sayin

Toledo, OH

#117556 Oct 15, 2012
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
If it is about Obama, they twist the issue. I just Googled "snopes obama college records" and this is what I got:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers...
Ah, what does Obama's SSN have to do with his college records?
And this one debunks what snopes claims.

http://www.wnd.com/2011/09/344461/

E-verify says Obama's SSN was never issued.

It does not say it belonged to someone else.
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#117557 Oct 15, 2012
Grand Birther wrote:
<quoted text>
Lol, the court in Ark destroyed this silly argument, Barfer Girks.
Moreover, colloquy is INADMISSIBLE.
Not only are you WONG, you're arguing the LOSING side again. It's been settled for over 100 years.
Was Omama's father a foreigner?
goldengirl

West Jordan, UT

#117558 Oct 15, 2012
The "birth certificate" is as fake as obottom is!
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#117559 Oct 15, 2012
LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Was Omama's father a foreigner?
Yes he was.
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#117560 Oct 15, 2012
LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes he was.
And since his father was a foreigner; During the original debate over the amendment Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan—the author of the Citizenship Clause[8]—described the clause as having the same content, despite different wording, as the earlier Civil Rights Act of 1866, namely, that it excludes Native Americans who maintain their tribal ties and "persons born in the United States who are "foreigners", or "aliens", or who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers."[

Notice where it says, "foreigners" or "aliens"? If his father was a foreigner then so was Barry. Very simple. That is of course, unless you try to twist the law into something it's not. You're acting inanely.
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

#117563 Oct 15, 2012
LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
You do agree that Omama's father was a foreigner don't you?
Sure, but legal allegiance and Natural Born Citizen status are based on the place of birth.
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

#117564 Oct 15, 2012
LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
And since his father was a foreigner; During the original debate over the amendment Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan—the author of the Citizenship Clause[8]—described the clause as having the same content, despite different wording, as the earlier Civil Rights Act of 1866, namely, that it excludes Native Americans who maintain their tribal ties and "persons born in the United States who are "foreigners", or "aliens", or who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers."[
Notice where it says, "foreigners" or "aliens"? If his father was a foreigner then so was Barry. Very simple. That is of course, unless you try to twist the law into something it's not. You're acting inanely.
But Howard was but one of hundreds of congressmen voting on the 14th Amendment, so what he says reflects his views but not necessarily those of the entire Congress, much less the thousands who voted for it in the state legislatures.

And it has been showed on this site that you have made selective quotations from Howard, and that he like most of the other members of Congress, was referring to the common law meaning of jurisdiction. In any case, what counts is the US Supreme Court ruling, not a selective quotation from Howard. Even if he had believed what you think, which has been showed not to be true, the US Supreme Court interpretation is the legal interpretation. And it ruled six to two (one not voting) that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen comes from the common law (hence not from Vattel or natural law) and that it refers to the PLACE of birth.

And it ruled that every child born in the USA was natural born, except for the children of foreign diplomats.
Grand Birther

Brooklyn, NY

#117565 Oct 15, 2012
LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Was Omama's father a foreigner?
Yep.

Who cares? Certainly not the United States Supreme Court.
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#117566 Oct 15, 2012
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure, but legal allegiance and Natural Born Citizen status are based on the place of birth.
Here's your answer;

Jacob M. Howard of Michigan—the author of the Citizenship Clause[8]—described the clause as having the same content, despite different wording, as the earlier Civil Rights Act of 1866, namely, that it excludes Native Americans who maintain their tribal ties and "persons born in the United States who are "foreigners", or "aliens", or who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers."[

Notice that it plainly states, "the Citizenship Clause has the same content as the earlier Civil Rights Act; namely that it EXCLUDES.....you can read those who are excluded for yourself. So, if you agree that Omama's father was not a citizen then case closed. Very simple.

Excluded: Foreigners, aliens, family members of Ambassadors, foreign ministries. Now which one of the above was Omama's father? An Ambassador? No. associated with foreign ministries? No. That only leaves "foreigner" and "alien". Take your pick.
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#117567 Oct 15, 2012
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
But Howard was but one of hundreds of congressmen voting on the 14th Amendment, so what he says reflects his views but not necessarily those of the entire Congress, much less the thousands who voted for it in the state legislatures.
And it has been showed on this site that you have made selective quotations from Howard, and that he like most of the other members of Congress, was referring to the common law meaning of jurisdiction. In any case, what counts is the US Supreme Court ruling, not a selective quotation from Howard. Even if he had believed what you think, which has been showed not to be true, the US Supreme Court interpretation is the legal interpretation. And it ruled six to two (one not voting) that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen comes from the common law (hence not from Vattel or natural law) and that it refers to the PLACE of birth.
And it ruled that every child born in the USA was natural born, except for the children of foreign diplomats.
This last statement is simply incorrect.
Grand Birther

Brooklyn, NY

#117569 Oct 15, 2012
Butthurt Loser wrote:
<quoted text>
And since his father was a foreigner; During the original debate over the amendment Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan—the author of the Citizenship Clause[8]—described the clause as having the same content, despite different wording, as the earlier Civil Rights Act of 1866, namely, that it excludes Native Americans who maintain their tribal ties and "persons born in the United States who are "foreigners", or "aliens", or who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers."[
Notice where it says, "foreigners" or "aliens"? If his father was a foreigner then so was Barry. Very simple. That is of course, unless you try to twist the law into something it's not. You're acting inanely.
I think you need to brush up on reading comprehension and grammar, Barfer Girks.

Why are you adding "or" between foreigners and aliens? It's not there.

Moreover, colloquy is INADMISSIBLE.
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

#117570 Oct 15, 2012
LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
This last statement is simply incorrect.
Here is the actual words of the ruling in Wong Kim Ark:

"It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established."

That says that the meaning of Natural Born comes from the common law (hence not from Vattel or from natural law), and that it refers to the place of birth (therefore not to the parents). And it says that the law was in force in Britain, and in the American colonies, and in the early states, and UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.

AND, just in case you think I made a selective quotation, and that the US Supreme Court really did not say that the meaning of Natural Born refers to the place of birth, there have been seven state courts and one federal court that pointed to the Wong Kim Ark case as defining Natural Born Citizen and saying that its ruling was every child in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats is a Natural Born Citizen, and this is just on Obama. There was a case on McCain (Hollister v McCain) that said the same thing, and there have been four or five other rulings on the US-born children of foreigners that state that they are Natural Born Citizens. And there have been NO rulings (not even Minor v. Happersett) that say that the US-born children of foreigners are not Natural Born Citizens or that two citizen parents are REQUIRED in order to be a Natural Born Citizen.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#117572 Oct 15, 2012
goldengirl wrote:
The "birth certificate" is as fake as obottom is!
Do you know what Obama and his dog Bo do not have in common?
Bo has his papers!
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

#117573 Oct 15, 2012
goldengirl wrote:
The "birth certificate" is as fake as obottom is!
Re "fake."

Only birther "experts"---who have not proved that they are really experts, and who certainly have not proved that they are fair and impartial say that there is anything wrong with the image of Obama's birth certificate.

The birther "experts" include Paul Irey, who has repeatedly claimed that Obama did not attend Columbia College, despite the fact that Columbia University has stated that Obama did attend (and that he graduated). And they include Doug Vogt, who claims to have found the original altar of Abraham. It is such "experts" as these that the birthers rely on for their case.

There are many real experts who say that there is nothing wrong with Obama's birth certificate, including John Woodman, who happens to be a member of the Tea Party and who dislikes Obama and Obama's policies, but shows that the birther "experts" are wrong. They also include Ivan Zatkovich, who was hired by WND to examine the image of Obama's birth certificate, and when he submitted his report that there was nothing wrong with Obama's birth certificate, WND simply did not publish it.

It is clear that rational conservatives do not believe the "birth certificate was forged" claims. Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck and the National Review certainly do not.

And the conservative secretary of state of Arizona asked Hawaii to confirm that Obama was born there and to confirm specified facts on Obama's birth certificate. Hawaii did, stating that it compared the image of Obama's birth certificate with the file copy (which is an additional confirmation that there was a file copy BTW) and that Obama was born there and that the facts match.

The secretary of state of Arizona accepted this confirmation and ruled that Obama will be on the ballot in Arizona in November. This indicates that he does not believe the claims that the birth certificate is forged (including those of Sheriff Joe) and that he does believe the officials in Hawaii.

LRS

Shreveport, LA

#117574 Oct 15, 2012
Grand Birther wrote:
<quoted text>
I think you need to brush up on reading comprehension and grammar, Barfer Girks.
Why are you adding "or" between foreigners and aliens? It's not there.
Moreover, colloquy is INADMISSIBLE.
I knew that was exactly what you were doing. You're misreading what it says. Notice how "or" is used here; After the Revolution, States retained only those portions of common law that were applicable to their local circumstances. The practice of England at the time was every person born within the realm of the King was a natural born subject by virtue of birth alone. In the United States, such a rule was not strictly followed as children born to black slaves, transient aliens, or Indians, followed the condition of their father.

Notice that black slaves, transient aliens or Indians are separate and independent of each other. It doesn't get much clearer than that!
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#117575 Oct 15, 2012
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Re "fake."
Only birther "experts"---who have not proved that they are really experts, and who certainly have not proved that they are fair and impartial say that there is anything wrong with the image of Obama's birth certificate.
The birther "experts" include Paul Irey, who has repeatedly claimed that Obama did not attend Columbia College, despite the fact that Columbia University has stated that Obama did attend (and that he graduated). And they include Doug Vogt, who claims to have found the original altar of Abraham. It is such "experts" as these that the birthers rely on for their case.
There are many real experts who say that there is nothing wrong with Obama's birth certificate, including John Woodman, who happens to be a member of the Tea Party and who dislikes Obama and Obama's policies, but shows that the birther "experts" are wrong. They also include Ivan Zatkovich, who was hired by WND to examine the image of Obama's birth certificate, and when he submitted his report that there was nothing wrong with Obama's birth certificate, WND simply did not publish it.
It is clear that rational conservatives do not believe the "birth certificate was forged" claims. Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck and the National Review certainly do not.
And the conservative secretary of state of Arizona asked Hawaii to confirm that Obama was born there and to confirm specified facts on Obama's birth certificate. Hawaii did, stating that it compared the image of Obama's birth certificate with the file copy (which is an additional confirmation that there was a file copy BTW) and that Obama was born there and that the facts match.
The secretary of state of Arizona accepted this confirmation and ruled that Obama will be on the ballot in Arizona in November. This indicates that he does not believe the claims that the birth certificate is forged (including those of Sheriff Joe) and that he does believe the officials in Hawaii.
Remain misinformed. That is your right.
Grand Birther

Columbus, OH

#117576 Oct 15, 2012
Busted Birfoon wrote:
<quoted text>
1) Rhodes is not Ark, MORON!
2) Ark was a citizen, not Natural born, IDIOT!
Natural born citizen was never used specifically in regards to Wong Kim Ark's own status as a citizen.
The decision did not confirm that Ark was a Natural born citizen, only a citizen.
**
The Constitution of the United States, as originally adopted, uses the words "citizen of the United States," and "natural-born citizen of the United States." By the original Constitution, every representative in Congress is required to have been "seven years a citizen of the United States," and every Senator to have been "nine years a citizen of the United States." and "no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President."
The Fourteenth Article of Amendment, besides declaring that all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside,
So when you going to prove me wrong, Flaming Faggot?


Kentucky Klown Kar, you again prove that you've not read a word of the Ark decision. The Rhodes case is quoted in Ark. It is part of the court's rationale.

If you had read the case you'd know that.

I've told you birfoons a hundred times that you can go to any law library and look this stuff up for yourself. They'll be more than happy to help laypeople such as yourself. This is a Supreme Court case, and it's going to be in the US Reports. It's pretty old, so you may to look online. Every law school is going to have access to Lexis and Westlaw. The law librarian will show you how to use it.

The court answered the question that was asked of it. Included in the courts rationale was 'people born in a country are natural born citizens. Thus Ark is a citizen.'

DUH, please learn to read, Kentucky Klown.
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#117577 Oct 15, 2012
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
America adhered, and still adheres to that practice.
“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.]
Re: "if everyone born on U.S. soil is a U.S. citizen then we would be inviting people who have no allegiance towards America at all to be full fledged citizens????? That's asinine."
James Madison disagrees:
"It is an established maxim, that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general, place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States."
In other words, Madison said, and subsequent laws and Supreme Court rulings have confirmed, that our system assumes that if you are born on US soil and your parents are not foreign diplomats, then you will have allegiance to the USA, and only to the USA.
A person born on US soil who fights against the USA can be tried for treason regardless of the citizenship of his parents and regardless of whether the person has dual citizenship status.
Ludicrous.

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
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 2 min TheIndependentMaj... 1,101,935
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 3 min STEFANO COLONNA 69,096
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 23 min truth-facts 46,388
ISIS Plans to Blow Up an Entire American City a... 43 min Lawrence Wolf 66
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 53 min KiMare 49,518
ruth ann hall's son 1 hr EYES EVERWHERE 1
Who is MICHAEL LA VAUGHN ROBINSON 2 hr Check Facts 1
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 4 hr RACE 97,985
•••
•••

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 ]
•••