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 5,218)

Showing posts 104,341 - 104,360 of167,337
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117563
Oct 15, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117564
Oct 15, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

Sioux City, IA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117565
Oct 15, 2012
 

Judged:

2

1

1

LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Was Omama's father a foreigner?
Yep.

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

Shreveport, LA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117566
Oct 15, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117567
Oct 15, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

1

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

Sioux City, IA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117569
Oct 15, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117570
Oct 15, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117572
Oct 15, 2012
 

Judged:

5

4

4

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117573
Oct 15, 2012
 

Judged:

2

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117574
Oct 15, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117575
Oct 15, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117576
Oct 15, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117577
Oct 15, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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.
Jacques Ottawa

Toronto, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117578
Oct 15, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Christie-Palin2012 wrote:
Rogue Scholar wrote:
<quote>
Margaret Thatcher on Socialism
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
<quoted text>
What are you talking about?
About the video that you, Rogue, posted on the May 1 Red Square celebs and Obam's purported secret deals with Medvedev. Pure Goebbels-style propapangda on a Russian-US theme.

I like Margaret Thatcher. But not that much and not enough to once more hear her views on socialism which I don't appreciate as they are extreme, any more, and get this, read it, any more than I appreciated extremist leftist views on capitalism.

She managed the Northern Ireland crisis very badly, preferring to go the brink rather than negotiate, with deaths and disastrous results that we know today. A socialist, Tony Blair, with the cooperation of a Democrat, Bill Clinton, brought piece to that martyred province that is Northern Ireland. Don't forget, also, that Thatcher protected and defended Augusto Pinochet to the very end. That is a blot on an otherwise pretty fair stewardship of the UK.
Grand Birther

Columbus, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117579
Oct 15, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
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!
Sorry, Barfer Girks, but I was only pointing out that there is no "or" in the sentence. Do please learn English grammar. I am an expert, so I can teach you if you need help.

Too bad for birfoons the law of the land per the HIGHEST COURT IN THE LAND, the United States Supreme Court, is the law in Ark. Citizenship by birth is irrespective of the parents if they are born in the US under its jurisdiction. The court defined jurisdiction as applying to aliens. Only those who are born to invading forces and ambassadors are excluded.

You can quote old law at length. You can submit colloquy as evidence in your brief. Opposing counsel will move to have it struck, and the judge will do so. In fact, your silly birfoon case will never make it to trial as this is long settled law that the court says is from "ancient principle."

These are the exact reason why birfoons are such losers. You're not literate enough to read and understand a case. You disrespect the law and procedural rules. This is why birfoons have lost 165 cases so far.
Grand Birther

Columbus, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117580
Oct 15, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Butthurt Loser wrote:
<quoted text>
Ludicrous.
Barfer Girks, have you noticed that no one cares what birfoons think is "ludicrous?"
Jacques Ottawa

Toronto, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117581
Oct 15, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Christie-Palin2012 wrote:
Mitt has announced that I will be his Chief of Staff and Sarah will be his Secretary of State. I thank him for his confidence in me and think Sarah will make a fine Sec. of State.
Yes, if only she can locate Russia and Africa.

Oh, btw, Rogue, please tell us why the entire Bush family, Cheney, Rove, Palin et al were not at the Repub convention in Atlanta. Was McCain there? Remind us why the Dems had Carter on video (he's 88 yrs old, I suppose he could not attend), Clinton, Kerry. Why's that?
Jacques Ottawa

Toronto, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117582
Oct 15, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Christie-Palin2012 wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, you know that communists (Putin) does not get along with fascists (Obama). So what else is new?
Obama a fascist, now? All this time, I thought you and your birter ilk said he was a communist. Let's get together, boys and girls, and bash heads, now and make up your minds.
Jacques Ottawa

Toronto, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117584
Oct 15, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Christie-Palin2012 wrote:
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
And Snopes says it is true too. Thank you EPA!!!
http://www.snopes.com/photos/accident/trainfi ...
<quoted text>
Silly Liberal, do you mean the train engineer should have called the president, any president, to avert such an issue? Why if every president had to answer every question 24/7/365, when would he sleep?
But there you go again, blaming Bush for everything that went wrong while he was president. I would not even thought about blaming Obama if this had happened on his watch but you will not let any opportunity like this to blame Bush!!!
Oh, I ran over a nail last week and got a flat tire, should I blame Obama?
No, no, that was on purpose, Rogue. You blame Obama for everything, even the smallest things, like a veteran being denied fair treatment to a lack of guards in Benghazi to one-day plunges in the DJIA to not allowing Bin Ladin his due rights. The difference between you and me is I know darn well GWB was not responsible for the stupid train disaster. But, had Obama or Clinton been president then, you would've blamed it on either of them immediately.
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#117585
Oct 15, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Remain misinformed. That is your right.
Again, you are not discussing the facts. The facts show that Obama was born in Hawaii, as confirmed by (1) his short form and long form birth certificates from Hawaii; (2) the confirmation of them by the officials of both parties in Hawaii; (3) the Index Data file; (4) the birth notices sent to the newspapers of Hawaii by the DOH of Hawaii in 1961; (5) the obvious fact that Hawaii is thousands of miles from any foreign country, and the historical fact that very few women traveled late in pregnancy in 1961; (6) the fact that Obama's Kenyan grandmother did NOT say that he was born in Kenya but said repeatedly that he was born in Hawaii and said in another interview that the first that her family in Kenya had heard of Obama's birth was in a letter from Hawaii; (7) The statement by the Kenyan government that it had investigated the claim that Obama was born in Kenya----and found that it was false.

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.

As for Sheriff Joe and his posse:

http://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:/www.obama...

and

http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/07/indict...

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.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 104,341 - 104,360 of167,337
|
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.

•••
•••
Chicago Dating

more search filters

less search filters

•••

Chicago Jobs

•••
•••
•••

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••