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
104,361 - 104,380 of 177,347 Comments Last updated 4 hrs ago

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

#117749 Oct 15, 2012
LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
One reason for the absence of an early-defined national birthright rule is that States had decided for themselves who were its citizens by virtue of being born within the limits of the State. Prior to the 14th amendment citizens of the United States were strictly defined as citizens of the States. Hmm, a citizen of the State.
Is that what your plagiarized birfoon blog passage says?

Got Alzheimer's? According to you there was never "ANY MENTION of the right to citizenship by birth under the United States Constitution."

Julia Lynch was RULED to be a citizen of the United States per national law:

"The right of citizenship, as distinguished from
alienage, is a national right or condition. It pertains
to the confederated sovereignty, the United States;
and not to the individual states." Lynch v. Clarke,
3 N.Y.Leg.Obs. 236 (N.Y. Ch. 1844).

"That all children, born within the dominion of
the United States, of foreign parents holding no
diplomatic office, became citizens at the time of
their birth, does not appear to have been contested
or doubted until more than 50 years after the adoption
of the constitution, when the matter was elaborately
argued in the court of chancery of New
York, and decided upon full consideration by
Vice Chancellor Sandford in favor of their citizenship.
Lynch v. Clarke (1844) 1 Sandf. Ch. 583." US v Wong Kim Ark,
169 U.S. 649, 664, 18 S.Ct. 456, 462-63 (1898).
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Birfoon: "or even any mention of the right to citizenship by birth under the United States Constitution"
See Lynch v. Clarke, which, incidentally was cited favorably by several federal courts, including the USSC.
“And the constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle, in the section which defines the qualification of the President.‘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,’ &c. The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and 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).
Rush

United States

#117750 Oct 15, 2012
Terri Tanna wrote:
<quoted text>
Apparently, you failed to note this EARLIER post:
#117,723
<quoted text>
BTW, why do you think the course is called corporate FINANCE -- that means borrowing money and issuing debt. How sad that you couldn't make it into junior college.
Didn't I see on twitter where you posted "If Romney wins ima gonna riot" shouldn't you be more concerned with the score of da bears game than sticking your tits into grownups business?

LOL

“SAVING BIRTHERS FROM IGNORANCE”

Since: Jul 09

The Farm North of Hinsdale

#117751 Oct 15, 2012
downhill246 wrote:
Okay, let's assume Obama was born in Hawaii which makes him a US citizen. He is adopted by his step father and goes to school in Indonesia. Indonesia required you to be a citizen of that nation to go to school there which he did, so he gave up his citizenship as a child but US law says he doesn't lose his US citizenship if he was a minor when this occurred so he is still a US citizen.
AND THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT by it action in Kerchner v. Obama (cert. denied 2010) upheld the decision with LEGAL FINALITY that Barack HUSSEIN Obama is a natural-born citizen of the United States and fully eligible to be president.
Unless you can cite a Supreme Court decision specifically with respect to Barack HUSSEIN Obama to the contrary all of your strained and uneducated legal "reasoning" carries no weight -- NONE, NADA, NOTHING.
=
Post #116,272
THE BIGGEST ISSUE IN THIS ELECTION
On Sunday, January 20, 2013, when Chief Justice John Roberts intones,“Congratulations, Mr. President,” will the strident and uneducated minorities on each side of the spectrum be able to accept the “Will of ‘WE THE PEOPLE’” however that turns out?
=
Can you assure the Class TONIGHT that YOU will accept the “Will of ‘WE THE PEOPLE’” however that turns out?
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#117752 Oct 15, 2012
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Is that what your plagiarized birfoon blog passage says?
Got Alzheimer's? According to you there was never "ANY MENTION of the right to citizenship by birth under the United States Constitution."
Julia Lynch was RULED to be a citizen of the United States per national law:
"The right of citizenship, as distinguished from
alienage, is a national right or condition. It pertains
to the confederated sovereignty, the United States;
and not to the individual states." Lynch v. Clarke,
3 N.Y.Leg.Obs. 236 (N.Y. Ch. 1844).
"That all children, born within the dominion of
the United States, of foreign parents holding no
diplomatic office, became citizens at the time of
their birth, does not appear to have been contested
or doubted until more than 50 years after the adoption
of the constitution, when the matter was elaborately
argued in the court of chancery of New
York, and decided upon full consideration by
Vice Chancellor Sandford in favor of their citizenship.
Lynch v. Clarke (1844) 1 Sandf. Ch. 583." US v Wong Kim Ark,
169 U.S. 649, 664, 18 S.Ct. 456, 462-63 (1898).
<quoted text>
The civil rights act of 1866 is all I need. Next contestant!

“Stuffs gettin better ”

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

#117753 Oct 15, 2012
Terri Tanna wrote:
<quoted text>
Apparently, you failed to note this EARLIER post:
#117,723
<quoted text>
BTW, why do you think the course is called corporate FINANCE -- that means borrowing money and issuing debt. How sad that you couldn't make it into junior college.
Easy bake.
You forget to mention that when a business borrows money, they don't get to send the bill to the business down the street and expect them to pay that debt.
Your degree in google didn't teach you that?
The class has been dismissed.
Now clean of the blackboard and write 100 times, "I will stop pretending to be more intelligent than a rock"

"Stuff's gettin better"
2012

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

#117754 Oct 15, 2012
Strictly defined?

"The same doctrine was repeatedly affirmed in
the executive departments, as, for instance, by Mr.
Marcy, secretary of state, in 1854 (2 Whart. Int.
Dig.[2d Ed.] p. 394); by Attorney General Black in
1859 (9 Ops. Attys. Gen. 373); and by Attorney
General Bates in 1862 (10 Ops. Attys. Gen. 328,
382, 394, 396)."
Id.

“SAVING BIRTHERS FROM IGNORANCE”

Since: Jul 09

The Farm North of Hinsdale

#117755 Oct 15, 2012
Jacques Ottawa wrote:
Terri Tanna wrote:
You continue to expose your total lack of ANY knowledge about Economics.
Do you have any idea what the cause of inflation is? Obviously, you don't. Do you understand that inflation can only occur under certain conditions precedent? Obviously, you are completely ignorant about this.
====
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
"You are a bore."
====
Just curious, Rogue, as an onlooker. Read Terri's post (above yours), then re-read your response. Unless I'm missing something, is there any relevance to her post in your response?
You see, that's the kind of answer we now expect from birthers and tea partyers. You stump 'em, they reply with irrelevant nonsense, very often sexual or coarse.
RELEVANCE -- YES, the rube admits he is so far over his head that he cannot say anything intelligent on this subject (or any subject).

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

#117756 Oct 15, 2012
Strictly defined?

Chancellor Kent, in his Commentaries, speaking
of the ‘general division of the inhabitants of
every country, under the comprehensive title of
‘Aliens' and ‘Natives,” says:‘Natives are all persons
born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of
the United States. This is the rule of the common
law, without any regard or reference to the political
condition or allegiance of their parents, with the exception
of the children of ambassadors, who are, in
theory, born within the allegiance of the foreign
power they represent.’
Id.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

#117757 Oct 15, 2012
LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
The civil rights act of 1866 is all I need. Next contestant!
Says the birfoon wiping egg off his face.

The Civil Rights Act of 1866 does not help the birfoon cause, unless you believe passages from birfoon blogs are citations to authority. According to the CR Act of 1866, UR full of it.
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Is that what your plagiarized birfoon blog passage says?
Got Alzheimer's? According to you there was never "ANY MENTION of the right to citizenship by birth under the United States Constitution."
Julia Lynch was RULED to be a citizen of the United States per national law:
"The right of citizenship, as distinguished from
alienage, is a national right or condition. It pertains
to the confederated sovereignty, the United States;
and not to the individual states." Lynch v. Clarke,
3 N.Y.Leg.Obs. 236 (N.Y. Ch. 1844).
"That all children, born within the dominion of
the United States, of foreign parents holding no
diplomatic office, became citizens at the time of
their birth, does not appear to have been contested
or doubted until more than 50 years after the adoption
of the constitution, when the matter was elaborately
argued in the court of chancery of New
York, and decided upon full consideration by
Vice Chancellor Sandford in favor of their citizenship.
Lynch v. Clarke (1844) 1 Sandf. Ch. 583." US v Wong Kim Ark,
169 U.S. 649, 664, 18 S.Ct. 456, 462-63 (1898).
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#117759 Oct 15, 2012
Terri Tanna wrote:
<quoted text>
RELEVANCE -- YES, the rube admits he is so far over his head that he cannot say anything intelligent on this subject (or any subject).
Do you have an anonymous P.O.Box? I want to send you a buttplug for x-mas. Maybe you'll shhhh then!

“SAVING BIRTHERS FROM IGNORANCE”

Since: Jul 09

The Farm North of Hinsdale

#117760 Oct 15, 2012
Post #116,272
THE BIGGEST ISSUE IN THIS ELECTION
On Sunday, January 20, 2013, when Chief Justice John Roberts intones,“Congratulations, Mr. President,” will the strident and uneducated minorities on each side of the spectrum be able to accept the “Will of ‘WE THE PEOPLE’” however that turns out?
=
Why is it that the "birther"-tea crumpets on this thread refuse to assure the Class TONIGHT that they will accept the “Will of ‘WE THE PEOPLE’” however that turns out?
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#117761 Oct 15, 2012
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Says the birfoon wiping egg off his face.
The Civil Rights Act of 1866 does not help the birfoon cause, unless you believe passages from birfoon blogs are citations to authority. According to the CR Act of 1866, UR full of it.
<quoted text>
According the Civil Rights Act of 1866, I'm dead on. Your understanding of punctuations is laughable. Next contestant!
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#117763 Oct 15, 2012
Terri Tanna wrote:
<quoted text>
Apparently, you failed to note this EARLIER post:
#117,723
<quoted text>
BTW, why do you think the course is called corporate FINANCE -- that means borrowing money and issuing debt. How sad that you couldn't make it into junior college.
C'mon now tank meat, show us all how intelligent you are by posting a simple business model "based" on carrying a huge debt. If you can't then just say so. LMAO

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#117764 Oct 15, 2012
Do any of you Libtards remember a little over a month ago a Brandon Raub who tweeted he was preparing to defend himself from a riot and they arrested him and put him in a mental evaluation center and then extended him for another month? Well these people are actually soliciting riots .... so what is Obama's secrete service going to do about them?
Oh, I know, Brandon Raub was an evil righty while the others are Obama voters!?!

Threats of elections riots if Obama loses

Despite the issue receiving national media attention, Obama supporters continue to threaten to riot if Mitt Romney wins the presidential election, raising the prospect of civil unrest if Obama fails to secure a second term.

The new threats continue to dominate Twitter and the vast majority make no reference to press coverage of the issue over the last week, illustrating the fact that they are a legitimate expression of how many Obama voters plan to respond if Romney comes out on top, and not merely a reaction to media hype.

An Infowars.com story written by Michael Snyder which was picked up by the Drudge Report over the weekend and has since gone viral documented how Twitter was flooded with messages from Obama supporters threatening to riot, a sign that "whichever side loses this election will accuse the other side of stealing the election."
http://www.presstv.ir/usdetail/266885.html
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#117765 Oct 15, 2012
Easy Bake, you did see where "women" have pushed Romney into the lead in the swing states, haven't you? Not looking good for Odumbo. Not good at all. He'll have his azz handed to him again in the next debate. I bet you don't know why either. LMAO pigeon

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#117766 Oct 15, 2012
Terri Tanna wrote:
Post #116,272
THE BIGGEST ISSUE IN THIS ELECTION
On Sunday, January 20, 2013, when Chief Justice John Roberts intones,“Congratulations, Mr. President,” will the strident and uneducated minorities on each side of the spectrum be able to accept the “Will of ‘WE THE PEOPLE’” however that turns out?
=
Why is it that the "birther"-tea crumpets on this thread refuse to assure the Class TONIGHT that they will accept the “Will of ‘WE THE PEOPLE’” however that turns out?
The question is, will you lefties accept it. Right now we have you lefties preparing to riot if Mitt is elected!!!

Threats of elections riots if Obama loses; Mon Oct 15, 2012
http://www.presstv.ir/usdetail/266885.html

we True Conservatives use legal means while you Commies use violence!!!

“SAVING BIRTHERS FROM IGNORANCE”

Since: Jul 09

The Farm North of Hinsdale

#117767 Oct 15, 2012
Terri Tanna wrote:
"Apparently, you failed to note this EARLIER post:
#117,723
"BTW, why do you think the course is called corporate FINANCE -- that means borrowing money and issuing debt."
====
LRS wrote:
show us all how intelligent you are by posting a simple business model "based" on carrying a huge debt. If you can't then just say so.
The first thing that EVERY start-up corporation does after its equity infusion is to go to the capital markets for loans, issuance of bonds, or mezzanine financing. THAT IS WHY IT IS CALLED FINANCE.
Please name any corporation listed on the NYSE that does not have debt. It would be a breach of fiduciary duty for a going concern operation not to leverage itself by prudent borrowing. YOU CANNOT NAME A SINGLE EXAMPLE TO THE CONTRARY -- I have already named major corporations with substantial debt (even when they have huge cash reserves). Please name any corp. acquisition that is not facilitated by DEBT.
Johannes

Yucaipa, CA

#117769 Oct 15, 2012
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
Do any of you Libtards remember a little over a month ago a Brandon Raub who tweeted he was preparing to defend himself from a riot and they arrested him and put him in a mental evaluation center and then extended him for another month? Well these people are actually soliciting riots .... so what is Obama's secrete service going to do about them?
Oh, I know, Brandon Raub was an evil righty while the others are Obama voters!?!
Threats of elections riots if Obama loses
Despite the issue receiving national media attention, Obama supporters continue to threaten to riot if Mitt Romney wins the presidential election, raising the prospect of civil unrest if Obama fails to secure a second term.
The new threats continue to dominate Twitter and the vast majority make no reference to press coverage of the issue over the last week, illustrating the fact that they are a legitimate expression of how many Obama voters plan to respond if Romney comes out on top, and not merely a reaction to media hype.
An Infowars.com story written by Michael Snyder which was picked up by the Drudge Report over the weekend and has since gone viral documented how Twitter was flooded with messages from Obama supporters threatening to riot, a sign that "whichever side loses this election will accuse the other side of stealing the election."
http://www.presstv.ir/usdetail/266885.html
....and the Secret Service should do what?

Do you even know what the Secret Service is responsible for?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#117770 Oct 15, 2012
commenter2001 wrote:
It's time to ask Mitt Romney tough questions about his mental health
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/10/1142...
You should have seen Fox News over the weekend and they asked a shrink to analyze Joe O'Binden's performance during the debate and he politely refused. But he did lay out a diagnose of people who acted the way he did.

“Stuffs gettin better ”

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

#117771 Oct 15, 2012
LRS wrote:
Easy Bake, you did see where "women" have pushed Romney into the lead in the swing states, haven't you? Not looking good for Odumbo. Not good at all. He'll have his azz handed to him again in the next debate. I bet you don't know why either. LMAO pigeon
I like when they "vote like like female parts depend on it"

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) 6 min Frijoles 68,944
Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 7 min James 68,351
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 10 min PDUPONT 1,099,852
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 2 hr D-U-H 49,462
HKN Record Label(Davido OBO) Need UpComing Arti... 2 hr Mr Michael 1
Danger! It is horrible, rotten luck to hug a w... 2 hr minluo 2
Word (Dec '08) 3 hr andet1987 4,649
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 11 hr Phil Indeblanc 97,916
•••
•••
•••

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 ]
•••