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

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 ... Full Story
Jacques Ottawa

North York, Canada

#118327 Oct 17, 2012
Jacques Ottawa wrote:
Terri Tanna wrote:
SHEEPLE Buster wrote:
"Say la vie to Obama."
====
<quoted text>
Of course, the one with the GED cannot even spell the phrase correctly, thus turning it into a completely different meaning.
"Let us say LIFE to President Obama!!"
<quoted text>
Oui. The correct sentence is "C'est la vie".

What a crawling loser. Edits. Leaves parts out. You think you look smart, don't you? Puerile silly fool.
LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
And of course you two clowns missed the point entirely. LMAO
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#118328 Oct 17, 2012
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
BirfoonChild, "play Justice" cannot render an opinion according to his play law.
Why is he so afraid? He thinks he is a "Justice". Hee hee. He's a grandiose delusional NPD twerp.
And if she vacations on the beach in Rio, and gets busted for violating Brazilian law, under which country is she under the jurisdiction of? US, IE, GE, BR?
Cat got your tongue? Hee hee hee!
<quoted text>
Puss! Wipe the crow-egg off of your face and get on with life, such as yours is.
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#118329 Oct 17, 2012
Jacques Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
Neither do both houses of congress, the supreme court, 162 tribunals, McCain, the Bush family, Cheney, Grove et al. But you do. Wow.
you are, IRRELEVANT! Hell, I don't even answer your post, this was an exception!
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#118330 Oct 17, 2012
Jacques Ottawa wrote:
Jacques Ottawa wrote:
Terri Tanna wrote:
SHEEPLE Buster wrote:
"Say la vie to Obama."
====
<quoted text>
Of course, the one with the GED cannot even spell the phrase correctly, thus turning it into a completely different meaning.
"Let us say LIFE to President Obama!!"
<quoted text>
Oui. The correct sentence is "C'est la vie".
What a crawling loser. Edits. Leaves parts out. You think you look smart, don't you? Puerile silly fool.
<quoted text>
I didn't leave anything out. Merely hit the reply button. Better check that memory of yours. It is getting worse.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#118331 Oct 17, 2012
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>you just don't get it!
Sorry, BirfoonBoy, a country may refuse to accept its citizen's renunciation. C.f., Kenya which routinely refuses to approve renunciation of Kenyan citizenship. Also, in the US, renunciation must be approved.[1]

BirfoonBoy's problem is that I do "get it" and can see through his infantile logic and childish premises.

__________
[1] "In accordance with Section 358 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, while persons seeking to renounce U.S. citizenship submit the necessary documentation to a U.S. consular officer at a U.S. Foreign Service post abroad, the decision whether to approve the renunciation is made by the Department of State in Washington, D.C. Accordingly, unless and until a certificate of loss of nationality is approved by the U.S. Department of State, the oath of renunciation, even though signed by the individual is not/not legally effective in terminating the person's U.S. citizenship."
http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citiz...
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, unless the alien's country of origin agrees to expatriation, the alien's foreign citizenship remains intact. The US cannot revoke foreign citizenship. US law has no force or effect in a foreign country. Similarly, operation of foreign law has no force or effect in the United States.
Play law doesn't count, child.

“Conservatism is a Disease.”

Since: Nov 11

Lake Los Angeles, CA

#118332 Oct 17, 2012
Birthers all have inbreeding depressions.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#118333 Oct 17, 2012
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, loser, but Bingham, Howard, and Trumbull adhered to the jus soli principle and they plainly stated so. They clearly did not believe that children born in this country of ordinary aliens were subject to a foreign power.
Furthermore, they are not the "highest authority" under the US Constitution, which you presumably hold dear. According to the Constitution, the Supreme Court is vested with the judicial Power of the United States, and it interprets the meaning of the Constitution.
Get used to it. And GROW UP!
<quoted text>
Poor little puppet. Still thinks stomping his feet, flailing his arms, and repeating himself while plugging his ears screaming "LALALALALA" wins a debate.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#118335 Oct 17, 2012
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>I love it when you come-out with BS that has nothing to do with the US Constitution, just irrelevant BS.
Huh? You da expert on JURISDICTION!

What's your problem? Every other country is sovereign but not the US? England can invalidate US citizenship of a born US citizen?

Suppose a German man and Irish woman have a child while residing in New York? According to US law the child is a US citizen. According to German law, she is a German citizen, and according to Irish law, she is an Irish citizen. She is entitled to passports from all three countries. None of the countries may invalidate her citizenship in any other country.
Does the birfoon think that Ireland by issuing a passport recognizing her Irish citizenship "strips away" her German citizenship? Does the birfoon think that Germany similarly "strips away" her Irish citizenship? Meanwhile the birfoon believes Germany may invalidate -- "strip away" -- her US citizenship.

Cat got your tongue?

UR a birfoon!
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
BirfoonChild, "play Justice" cannot render an opinion according to his play law.
Why is he so afraid? He thinks he is a "Justice". Hee hee. He's a grandiose delusional NPD twerp.
And if she vacations on the beach in Rio, and gets busted for violating Brazilian law, under which country is she under the jurisdiction of? US, IE, GE, BR?
Cat got your tongue? Hee hee hee!
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#118337 Oct 17, 2012
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, BirfoonBoy, a country may refuse to accept its citizen's renunciation. C.f., Kenya which routinely refuses to approve renunciation of Kenyan citizenship. Also, in the US, renunciation must be approved.[1]
BirfoonBoy's problem is that I do "get it" and can see through his infantile logic and childish premises.
__________
[1] "In accordance with Section 358 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, while persons seeking to renounce U.S. citizenship submit the necessary documentation to a U.S. consular officer at a U.S. Foreign Service post abroad, the decision whether to approve the renunciation is made by the Department of State in Washington, D.C. Accordingly, unless and until a certificate of loss of nationality is approved by the U.S. Department of State, the oath of renunciation, even though signed by the individual is not/not legally effective in terminating the person's U.S. citizenship."
http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citiz...
<quoted text>
Puss! Just more BS, you just don't understand, do you.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#118340 Oct 17, 2012
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, loser, but Bingham, Howard, and Trumbull adhered to the jus soli principle and they plainly stated so. They clearly did not believe that children born in this country of ordinary aliens were subject to a foreign power.
Furthermore, they are not the "highest authority" under the US Constitution, which you presumably hold dear. According to the Constitution, the Supreme Court is vested with the judicial Power of the United States, and it interprets the meaning of the Constitution.
Get used to it. And GROW UP!
<quoted text>
So, it is your claim that an Indian mother who snuck off the reservation and plopped out a child in Philadelphia would have a child who was a US Citizen?

I mean, since all those wonderful people believed in "jus soli"..

I got a bridge I can sell ya, give me a call..

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#118343 Oct 17, 2012
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
Poor little puppet. Still thinks stomping his feet, flailing his arms, and repeating himself while plugging his ears screaming "LALALALALA" wins a debate.
Grow up, loser. Bingham, Trumbull, and Howard all subscribed to the jus soli doctrine, birfoon misreading of "subject to a foreign power" notwithstanding.

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).

“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).

“Is not the child born in this country of German parents a citizen? I am afraid we have got very few citizens in some of the counties of good old Pennsylvania if the children born of German parents are not citizens.”-Senator Lyman Trumbull, Cong. Globe 39th, 1st Sess 498 (1866).

“Who are natural-born citizens but those born within the republic? Those born within the Republic, whether black or white, are citizens by birth—natural-born citizens.” John Bingham, Cong. Globe 37th Cong., 2nd Sess. 1639 (1862)

Grow up! The simple fact is THEY DIDN'T CONSIDER CHILDREN BORN IN THE US OF ORDINARY ALIENS TO BE BORN SUBJECT TO A FOREIGN POWER.

Too bad you don't understand what THEY MEANT by "subject to a foreign power", which meant children of foreign ambassadors and certain other exceptions.

GROW FECKING UP!
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, loser, but Bingham, Howard, and Trumbull adhered to the jus soli principle and they plainly stated so. They clearly did not believe that children born in this country of ordinary aliens were subject to a foreign power.
Furthermore, they are not the "highest authority" under the US Constitution, which you presumably hold dear. According to the Constitution, the Supreme Court is vested with the judicial Power of the United States, and it interprets the meaning of the Constitution.
Get used to it. And GROW UP!
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#118346 Oct 17, 2012
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Huh? You da expert on JURISDICTION!
What's your problem? Every other country is sovereign but not the US? England can invalidate US citizenship of a born US citizen?
Suppose a German man and Irish woman have a child while residing in New York? According to US law the child is a US citizen. According to German law, she is a German citizen, and according to Irish law, she is an Irish citizen. She is entitled to passports from all three countries. None of the countries may invalidate her citizenship in any other country.
Does the birfoon think that Ireland by issuing a passport recognizing her Irish citizenship "strips away" her German citizenship? Does the birfoon think that Germany similarly "strips away" her Irish citizenship? Meanwhile the birfoon believes Germany may invalidate -- "strip away" -- her US citizenship.
Cat got your tongue?
UR a birfoon!
<quoted text>
How is the water tasting, Puss!
Better yet! How does it feel to be arguing with a 6th grader?
What is education level?!!!!!
MyTwoCents

Park Ridge, IL

#118347 Oct 17, 2012
LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
You better wake your azz up!
Still boring.

>
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#118348 Oct 17, 2012
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Grow up, loser. Bingham, Trumbull, and Howard all subscribed to the jus soli doctrine, birfoon misreading of "subject to a foreign power" notwithstanding.
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).
“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).
“Is not the child born in this country of German parents a citizen? I am afraid we have got very few citizens in some of the counties of good old Pennsylvania if the children born of German parents are not citizens.”-Senator Lyman Trumbull, Cong. Globe 39th, 1st Sess 498 (1866).
“Who are natural-born citizens but those born within the republic? Those born within the Republic, whether black or white, are citizens by birth—natural-born citizens.” John Bingham, Cong. Globe 37th Cong., 2nd Sess. 1639 (1862)
Grow up! The simple fact is THEY DIDN'T CONSIDER CHILDREN BORN IN THE US OF ORDINARY ALIENS TO BE BORN SUBJECT TO A FOREIGN POWER.
Too bad you don't understand what THEY MEANT by "subject to a foreign power", which meant children of foreign ambassadors and certain other exceptions.
GROW FECKING UP!
<quoted text>
they also argued to, " and Subject to the jurisdiction, thereof", looks like to me, Obama missed half of the requirements. Ain't no such thing in the constitution, you is or you ain't. Obama ain't!
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#118349 Oct 17, 2012
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Huh? You da expert on JURISDICTION!
What's your problem? Every other country is sovereign but not the US? England can invalidate US citizenship of a born US citizen?
Suppose a German man and Irish woman have a child while residing in New York? According to US law the child is a US citizen. According to German law, she is a German citizen, and according to Irish law, she is an Irish citizen. She is entitled to passports from all three countries. None of the countries may invalidate her citizenship in any other country.
Does the birfoon think that Ireland by issuing a passport recognizing her Irish citizenship "strips away" her German citizenship? Does the birfoon think that Germany similarly "strips away" her Irish citizenship? Meanwhile the birfoon believes Germany may invalidate -- "strip away" -- her US citizenship.
Cat got your tongue?
UR a birfoon!
<quoted text>
just not the way the 14th was setup. We don't invalidate a citizenship, unless requested.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#118350 Oct 17, 2012
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Grow up, loser. Bingham, Trumbull, and Howard all subscribed to the jus soli doctrine, birfoon misreading of "subject to a foreign power" notwithstanding.
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).
“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).
“Is not the child born in this country of German parents a citizen? I am afraid we have got very few citizens in some of the counties of good old Pennsylvania if the children born of German parents are not citizens.”-Senator Lyman Trumbull, Cong. Globe 39th, 1st Sess 498 (1866).
“Who are natural-born citizens but those born within the republic? Those born within the Republic, whether black or white, are citizens by birth—natural-born citizens.” John Bingham, Cong. Globe 37th Cong., 2nd Sess. 1639 (1862)
Grow up! The simple fact is THEY DIDN'T CONSIDER CHILDREN BORN IN THE US OF ORDINARY ALIENS TO BE BORN SUBJECT TO A FOREIGN POWER.
Too bad you don't understand what THEY MEANT by "subject to a foreign power", which meant children of foreign ambassadors and certain other exceptions.
GROW FECKING UP!
<quoted text>
Hi puppet..

So, it is your claim that an Indian mother who snuck off the reservation and plopped out a child in Philadelphia would have a child who was a US Citizen?

I mean, since all those wonderful people believed in "jus soli"..

I got a bridge I can sell ya, give me a call..

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#118351 Oct 17, 2012
akpilot wrote:
<quoted text>
So, it is your claim that an Indian mother who snuck off the reservation and plopped out a child in Philadelphia would have a child who was a US Citizen?
I mean, since all those wonderful people believed in "jus soli"..
I got a bridge I can sell ya, give me a call..
Huh? They weren't referring to Indians, jagoff.

Indians? The law concerning Indians was a SPECIFIC EXCEPTION. They were not "ordinary aliens". DUH!

“Is not the child born in this country of German parents a citizen? I am afraid we have got very few citizens in some of the counties of good old Pennsylvania if the children born of German parents are not citizens.”-Senator Lyman Trumbull, Cong. Globe 39th, 1st Sess 498 (1866).

Indians? The law concerning Indians was a SPECIFIC EXCEPTION.

GROW UP! LOSER.

Indians were a special case, not subject to the GENERAL RULE.

Got a clue?

"[I]t (the 14th amendment) granted, and was intended to grant, national citizenship to every person of the Indian race in this country who was unconnected with any tribe, and who resided, in good faith, outside of Indian reservations and within one of the states or territories of the Union. This fact is, we think, entitled to great weight in determining the meaning and scope of the amendment. Lithographic Co. v. Sarony, 111 U. S. 57; S. C. 4 SUP. CT. REP. 279."
Elk v. Wilkins, 112 US 94. 118 (1884).

GROW UP!

If you haven't yet figured it out, Indians within the US have ALWAYS BEEN CONSIDERED SEPARATELY FROM GENERAL RULES OF CITIZENSHIP.

Did you just fall off the turnip truck?
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, loser, but Bingham, Howard, and Trumbull adhered to the jus soli principle and they plainly stated so. They clearly did not believe that children born in this country of ordinary aliens were subject to a foreign power.
Furthermore, they are not the "highest authority" under the US Constitution, which you presumably hold dear. According to the Constitution, the Supreme Court is vested with the judicial Power of the United States, and it interprets the meaning of the Constitution.
Get used to it. And GROW UP!
MyTwoCents

Park Ridge, IL

#118352 Oct 17, 2012
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
Now this is typical Libtardian Logic. In the debate last night Obama claimed the price of gasoline was $1.80+ gallon when he entered office so what is it now $3.60+ a gallon? Hint, what was the cost of crude oil when Obama entered office and what is it today?
Since non-government owned petroleum companies control only 10% of the earths oil, who is to blame? Now if you were Bill O'Really you would blame it on ... brokers .... but O'Really is no Conservative.
OPEC sets the price of oil as they control 50% of the EXPORT oil market! And here is the list of the OPEC member COUNTRIES;
...
Algeria, Angola, Ecuador, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates and Venezuela
..
Please note, Exxon-Mobile, Texaco, BP, Shell, etc. are not among those countries!!!
....
Oh, and oil production in U.S. federal controlled lands and waters is DOWN 14% since Obama entered the White House.
And SUPPLY, on whole, is up. Go figure. So who sets the price of GAS? What is the NATIONAL supply level comapred historically?
Go Rouge, you're a googleman reaserchist. hehehehe

>
MyTwoCents

Park Ridge, IL

#118353 Oct 17, 2012
SHEEPLE Buster wrote:
<quoted text>
SKANK, STFU!
I made a mistake.
Definition of C'EST LA VIE
: that's life : that's how things happen
I also got the meaning wrong, but then again I am not French.
Nope. Just simply Stupid.

>

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#118354 Oct 17, 2012
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>just not the way the 14th was setup. We don't invalidate a citizenship, unless requested.
Sorry, BirfoonBoy, but NO COUNTRY invalidates the citizenship of a person who is a citizen of a foreign country.

Duh!

It cuts both ways, BIRFOON.
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Huh? You da expert on JURISDICTION!
What's your problem? Every other country is sovereign but not the US? England can invalidate US citizenship of a born US citizen?
Suppose a German man and Irish woman have a child while residing in New York? According to US law the child is a US citizen. According to German law, she is a German citizen, and according to Irish law, she is an Irish citizen. She is entitled to passports from all three countries. None of the countries may invalidate her citizenship in any other country.
Does the birfoon think that Ireland by issuing a passport recognizing her Irish citizenship "strips away" her German citizenship? Does the birfoon think that Germany similarly "strips away" her Irish citizenship? Meanwhile the birfoon believes Germany may invalidate -- "strip away" -- her US citizenship.
Cat got your tongue?
UR a birfoon!

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
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 6 min John Galt 1,172,223
Word (Dec '08) 18 min RACE 4,956
Double Word Game (Dec '11) 19 min RACE 1,589
abby 1-26 20 min Mister Tonka 17
Triple Word Game (Dec '11) 21 min RACE 976
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 50 min Red_Forman 5,352
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 55 min Earthling-1 50,234
anybody know Glen Musielak? Glentech? (Mar '13) 17 hr Irving 74
Chicago Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 10:04 am PST

NFL10:04AM
Richardson was suspended for two Colts playoff games
ESPN10:58 AM
Colts won't commit to RB Richardson for 2015
Yahoo! Sports11:49 AM
League conducts nearly 40 interviews into 'deflate-gate'
Yahoo! Sports11:50 AM
NFL: No decision yet on deflated balls
NBC Sports12:54 PM
Grigson goes silent on NFL investigation into Patriots