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
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#121128 Oct 28, 2012
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
How does it feel that an NPD Twerp with his play law in his delusional world fantasizes that he kicked my ass?
Not at all surprising. NPS twerps are a dime a dozen.
Grow up.
<quoted text>
It has been well established that;

1. "subject to the jurisdiction, thereof", is the US Constitution.
2. aliens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US Constitution.
3. the US Government can not strip the citizenship away from a child, that was passed from its father's nation.
4. the US Constitution has never recognized a dual-citizenship status.
5. a Foreign Power are all nations, other than the US.
6. Ark v. US, violated the 14th amendment.
7. Obama was born a citizen of his father's nation and never, naturalized into the US.
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#121129 Oct 28, 2012
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
If the alien fathers (for that matter the alien mothers) are in the USA, they are subject to the jurisdiction of the USA when they are in the USA. In fact, everyone in the USA except for foreign diplomats and their families, is subject to the jurisdiction of the USA. That is because "subject to the jurisdiction" means having to obey US laws. If an alien father (for that matter an alien mother) in the USA were not subject to the jurisdiction of the USA, she or he would not have to obey the laws.
The US Supreme Court ruled six to two that:
"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."
http://www.fredthompsonsamerica.com/2012/07/3...
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyiname...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405297...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_born_cit...
http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_eviden...
It has been well established that;

1. "subject to the jurisdiction, thereof", is the US Constitution.
2. aliens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US Constitution.
3. the US Government can not strip the citizenship away from a child, that was passed from its father's nation.
4. the US Constitution has never recognized a dual-citizenship status.
5. a Foreign Power are all nations, other than the US.
6. Ark v. US, violated the 14th amendment.
7. Obama was born a citizen of his father's nation and never, naturalized into the US.
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#121130 Oct 28, 2012
Terri Tanna wrote:
<quoted text>
Why use case law?
Because that is the basis of our great nation’s grand tradition of 800-years of Anglo-American jurisprudence.
=
Why are some “birthers” pursuing their inane and uneducated argument regarding JURISDICTION under the Constitution? It has nothing to do with the issue of President Obama’s natural-born citizenship.
=
Here is the simple response to any question about jurisdiction under our sacred Constitution as applied on a daily basis without controversy.
Any person who is involved as a party to any matter being tried in federal court is under the jurisdiction of the United States of America.
Jurisdiction is the very first element that must be pleaded in any law suit – civil or otherwise. Jurisdiction may not be waived, nor be it be voluntarily conferred. Either the party is subject to the jurisdiction of the federal court under our sacred Constitution or they are not. Thus, anyone who is a party to a matter being tried in federal court is under the jurisdiction of the United States of America.
It has been well established that;

1. "subject to the jurisdiction, thereof", is the US Constitution.
2. aliens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US Constitution.
3. the US Government can not strip the citizenship away from a child, that was passed from its father's nation.
4. the US Constitution has never recognized a dual-citizenship status.
5. a Foreign Power are all nations, other than the US.
6. Ark v. US, violated the 14th amendment.
7. Obama was born a citizen of his father's nation and never, naturalized into the US.
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#121131 Oct 28, 2012
Grand Birther wrote:
This group of birthers is hilarious.
They pound away on topix, in some cases (LRS, Rogue Moron) up to 15+ hrs, daily.
Are they purposely ineffective advocates for their cause?
Girther Barks! You have shat for brains. Did you even know that?
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

#121132 Oct 28, 2012
LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
What a dipshat! This is as ignorant as it gets. pigeon
Notice that the above does not respond to the facts but merely calls names. This is typical of birthers.

Here are the facts that should be responded to:

There is exactly as much controversy about Mitt Romney's college transcripts and passport records as about Obama's college transcripts and passport records. Exactly as much.

The only controversy about Obama's records of any kind comes from Obama's enemies, and the only controversy about Mitt Romney's records comes from his enemies. Mitt Romney has not showed his school transcripts, college transcripts, graduate school transcripts or passport records---why is he hiding them?

He does not, of course, have to show ten years of his tax records, but then his father did show ten years of his tax records, and George Bush showed eight years.(Mitt showed only two years.) Why is he hiding all the other years?

I do not doubt that everything that Romney did on his taxes was completely legal. But I bet he took some very questionable deductions, such as listing as a business expense a dancing horse. Yes, of course a dancing horse could be a business expense, but if the family got amusement and pleasure out of raising that horse, which it did, it was a hobby and not deductible.
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#121133 Oct 28, 2012
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Notice that the above does not respond to the facts but merely calls names. This is typical of birthers.
Here are the facts that should be responded to:
There is exactly as much controversy about Mitt Romney's college transcripts and passport records as about Obama's college transcripts and passport records. Exactly as much.
The only controversy about Obama's records of any kind comes from Obama's enemies, and the only controversy about Mitt Romney's records comes from his enemies. Mitt Romney has not showed his school transcripts, college transcripts, graduate school transcripts or passport records---why is he hiding them?
He does not, of course, have to show ten years of his tax records, but then his father did show ten years of his tax records, and George Bush showed eight years.(Mitt showed only two years.) Why is he hiding all the other years?
I do not doubt that everything that Romney did on his taxes was completely legal. But I bet he took some very questionable deductions, such as listing as a business expense a dancing horse. Yes, of course a dancing horse could be a business expense, but if the family got amusement and pleasure out of raising that horse, which it did, it was a hobby and not deductible.
Thanks for proving my point!
SHEEPLE Buster

Louisville, KY

#121134 Oct 28, 2012
Ellen1 wrote:
Here are the facts that should be responded to:
There is exactly as much controversy about Mitt Romney's college transcripts
That would be none for Romney and MUCH for Obama!
They are different.
This is the fact that you can't explain

“SAVING BIRTHERS FROM IGNORANCE”

Since: Jul 09

The Farm North of Hinsdale

#121135 Oct 28, 2012
JACQUES BARZUN, a pioneering cultural historian, reigning public intellectual and longtime Ivy League professor who became a best-selling author in his 90s with the acclaimed "From Dawn to Decadence," has died. He was 104.

Barzun, who taught for nearly 50 years at Columbia University, passed away Thursday evening in San Antonio, where he had lived in recent years, his son-in-law Gavin Parfit said.

Praised by Cynthia Ozick as among "the last of the thoroughgoing generalists," the tall, courtly Barzun wrote dozens of books and essays on everything from philosophy and music to baseball and detective novels.

In 2000, he capped his career with "From Dawn to Decadence," a survey of Western civilization from the Renaissance to the end of the 20th century. The length topped 800 pages, and the theme was uninspiring - the collapse of traditions in modern times - yet it received wide acclaim from reviewers, stayed on best-seller lists for months and wa s nominated for the National Book Award and the National Book Critics Circle prize.

Even the Rolling Stones' Keith Richards said he was reading it.

"The whole thing is a surprise, because scholarship is not exactly the thing people run after these days, or perhaps at any time," Barzun told The Associated Press in 2000.

Along with Lionel Trilling, Dwight Macdonald and others, the French immigrant was a prominent thinker during the Cold War era, making occasional television appearances and even appearing in 1956 on the cover of Time magazine, which cited him as representing "a growing host of men of ideas who not only have the respect of the nation, but who return the compliment."

In 2003, President George W. Bush awarded him a Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation's highest civilian honor, praising Barzun as "a thinker of great discernment and integrity.... Few academics of the last century have equaled his output and his influence." In 2010, he re ceived a National Humanities Medal.

Barzun had firsthand knowledge of much of the 20th century and secondhand knowledge of a good part of the 19th century. His great-grandmother, born in 1830, would give him chocolate and tell him stories, an experience that helped inspire him to become a historian.

A scholar's son, Barzun was born in Creteil, France, in 1907 and grew up in a household where Modernism was the great subject and visitors included Jean Cocteau, Ezra Pound and Guillame Apollinaire, upon whose knee he once sat. But World War I drove the family out of the country and across the ocean to the United States.

"The outbreak of war in August 1914 and the nightmare that ensued put an end to all innocent joys and assumptions," Barzun later wrote. "By the age of ten - as I was later told - my words and attitudes betrayed suicidal thoughts; it appeared that I was 'ashamed' to be still alive."

Reading consoled him, especially "Hamlet," but he never rec overed his early "zest for life." In 1990, he defined himself as a "spirited" pessimist, explaining that he retained a "vivid sight of an earlier world, soon followed by its collapse in wretchedness and folly."

“SAVING BIRTHERS FROM IGNORANCE”

Since: Jul 09

The Farm North of Hinsdale

#121136 Oct 28, 2012
Having learned English in part by reading James Fenimore Cooper, Barzun entered Columbia as an undergraduate at age 15 and was in his early 20s when the school hired him as an instructor in the history department. He remained with Columbia until his retirement, in 1975, and would be long remembered for the "Colloquium on Important Books" he taught with Trilling, with one former student calling Barzun "a towering charismatic figure who aroused the kind of fierce loyalties that the medieval masters must have."

Allen Ginsberg, another Barzun student, once joked that his former professor was a master of "politeness."

Barzun's greatest influence was on the writing of cultural history; he helped invent it. As a student at Columbia he was among the first to integrate the narration of wars and government with the evolution of art, science, education and fashion.

"It was partly my upbringing, being among a group of artists of every kind," he told the AP. "When I became interested in history, it seemed that social and cultural elements were perfectly real things that existed as forces. Diplomacy and force of arms were treated as the substance of history, and there was this other realm missing."

"From Dawn to Decadence," summing up a lifetime of thinking, offered a rounded, leisurely and conservative tour of Western civilization, with numerous digressions printed in the margins. Barzun guided readers from the religious debates of the Reformation to the contemporary debates on beliefs of any kind.

"Distrust (was) attached to anything that retained a shadow of authoritativeness - old people, old ideas, old conceptions of what a leader or a teacher might do," he wrote of the late 20th century.

Barzun told the AP in 2003 that he remembered coming to the United States after World War I and finding a country that lived up to its own happy, informal reputation. "It was openhearted, amiable and courteous in manner, ready to try anything new," he said. "But many of those things have gone to pieces, for understandable reasons."

He contributed to such magazines as Harper's and The New Republic and he published more than 30 books, notably "Teacher in America," a classic analysis of education and culture. In the early 1950s, he and Trilling helped found the Readers' Subscription Book Club, a highbrow response to the Book-of-the-Month Club that lasted 12 years.

Barzun also edited many books, including a compilation of short detective stories, and wrote a memorable essay on baseball, in which he advised that "Whoever wants to know the heart and mind of America had better learn baseball." Those words eventually made it to the Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown, N.Y., for which Barz un later autographed a bat celebrating his 100th birthday.

Barzun had three children with his first wife, Marianna Lowell, who died in 1978. He married Marguerite Davenport two years later. He also is survived by 10 grandchildren and eight great-grandchildren, according to his daughter, Isabel Barzun.

"He was a gentleman. He was a scholar. He was refined, he was kind. He was enormously generous in spirit," said Parfit, his son-in-law. "He was one of a kind."

“SAVING BIRTHERS FROM IGNORANCE”

Since: Jul 09

The Farm North of Hinsdale

#121137 Oct 28, 2012
Justice Dale wrote:
It has been well established that;
1. "subject to the jurisdiction, thereof", is the US Constitution.
2. aliens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US Constitution.
Terri Tanna wrote:
"Here is the simple response to any question about jurisdiction under our sacred Constitution as applied on a daily basis without controversy.
"Any person who is involved as a party to any matter being tried in federal court is under the jurisdiction of the United States of America.
"Jurisdiction is the very first element that must be pleaded in any law suit."
====
Do you deny that any party to a federal lawsuit is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States of America?
Do you understand that a federal court cannot try a case unless it has jurisdiction over each and every party?
Do you understand that foreign nationals are involved as parties in law suits in federal courts every day of the week?
Do you understand ANYTHING about jurisdiction?
BTW, you have never told the Class what in YOUR opinion is the very best secondary source on jurisdiction under the United States Constitution. Please do so now.

“SAVING BIRTHERS FROM IGNORANCE”

Since: Jul 09

The Farm North of Hinsdale

#121138 Oct 28, 2012
Justice Dale wrote:
4. the US Constitution has never recognized a dual-citizenship status.
There never was a need for it to do so formally since the matter was long settled by 1789 under our now 800-year tradition of Anglo-American jurisprudence on which the United States Constitution is based.
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#121139 Oct 28, 2012
Stanky Tank Meat has shat for brains too.
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#121140 Oct 28, 2012
Terri Tanna wrote:
<quoted text>
Terri Tanna wrote:
"Here is the simple response to any question about jurisdiction under our sacred Constitution as applied on a daily basis without controversy.
"Any person who is involved as a party to any matter being tried in federal court is under the jurisdiction of the United States of America.
"Jurisdiction is the very first element that must be pleaded in any law suit."
====
Do you deny that any party to a federal lawsuit is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States of America?
Do you understand that a federal court cannot try a case unless it has jurisdiction over each and every party?
Do you understand that foreign nationals are involved as parties in law suits in federal courts every day of the week?
Do you understand ANYTHING about jurisdiction?
BTW, you have never told the Class what in YOUR opinion is the very best secondary source on jurisdiction under the United States Constitution. Please do so now.
Dummy, the first sentance of the 14th tells you who is subject to the jurisdiction of the US Constitution.
Would you please tell the class the purpose of a treaty.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

#121141 Oct 28, 2012
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
Well Wojo, here is ANOTHER video. Where are YOUR videos???
<quoted text>
SURE, not only have I shown videos of Romney signs being vandalized but the names of people arrested. I have also shown a video of an Obama supporter being assaulted.
Yes, I am an equal opportunity finger pointer. I do not tolerate corruption on either side of the isle.
<quoted text>
No, it is you who can not get the point. ANYONE can make an allegation but the actual proof is when there is actual evidence like a video of the perpetrators.
A picture of a defaced sign is not proof of vandalism as the owner of the property can deface his own property. In one case a man removed an Obama sign FROM HIS OWN PROPERTY and he was arrested ..... and then released!!! The law says you can not remove a political sign that is "lawfully" posted but the poster did not have permission to place a sign on his property and they arrested the WRONG damn person.
No, it is you, the flaming bigot, who will never "get it" as you are blinded by your own bigotry.
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, Rouge completely missed the point. I'm not at all surprised.
How can Rouge be against political corruption when he doesn't understand what it is?
Rouge continues to miss the point.

Rouge simply does not comprehend that vandalism of political signs by wayward individuals is not political corruption.

"Political corruption is the use of power by government officials for illegitimate private gain. Misuse of government power for other purposes, such as repression of political opponents and general police brutality, is not considered political corruption. Neither are illegal acts by private persons or corporations not directly involved with the government. An illegal act by an officeholder constitutes political corruption only if the act is directly related to their official duties, is done under color of law or involves trading in influence."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_corrup...

Got a clue yet? Rouge talks about how he's against "corruption" by posting videos of ordinary vandalism.

Pathetic.
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#121143 Oct 28, 2012
Terri Tanna wrote:
<quoted text>
There never was a need for it to do so formally since the matter was long settled by 1789 under our now 800-year tradition of Anglo-American jurisprudence on which the United States Constitution is based.
Never was a need for it, I refer you to the Oath of Citizenship. Would you expect any-less from a born citizen?
How has Broken Axelrod been treating you?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#121144 Oct 28, 2012
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
And you? I am having a lot of fun jerking your chains. In fact every troll remark I get, is another feather in my cap!
Grand Birther wrote:
<quoted text>
Rogue Moron, we all know you're incapable of jerking anything other than your own lonely pud.
Oooo, aren't we getting witty? I guess it took you eight years in college to become that phunny!

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#121145 Oct 28, 2012
Grand Birther wrote:
<quoted text>
Rogue Moron, we all know you're incapable of jerking anything other than your own lonely pud.
And I'd rather be a jerky than a yankey.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

#121146 Oct 28, 2012
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>It has been well established that;
1. "subject to the jurisdiction, thereof", is the US Constitution.
2. aliens are not subject to the jurisdiction of the US Constitution.
3. the US Government can not strip the citizenship away from a child, that was passed from its father's nation.
4. the US Constitution has never recognized a dual-citizenship status.
5. a Foreign Power are all nations, other than the US.
6. Ark v. US, violated the 14th amendment.
7. Obama was born a citizen of his father's nation and never, naturalized into the US.
More infantile play law from the Play Justice.

1. "[S]ubject to the jurisdiction, thereof" is a phrase in a clause in an amendment to the Constitution. That's news?
2. Aliens have always been subject to the jurisdiction of the United States while in this country. Rephrasing as 'subject to the constitution" does not change reality.
3. The jus soli doctrine in this country concerns who is born a citizen in this country and has nothing to do with foreign citizenship.
4. Irrelevant. BirfoonBoy thinks official recognition of of dual citizenship would be necessary for the US to exercise its sovereign power within its boundaries. Nonsense.
5. so what?
6. According to Play Law. So what?
7. Irrelevant. He was born a citizen in this country per US law. Play Law doesn't count and operation of foreign law is without force or effect within the jurisdiction of the US.
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
How does it feel that an NPD Twerp with his play law in his delusional world fantasizes that he kicked my ass?
Not at all surprising. NPS twerps are a dime a dozen.
Grow up.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#121147 Oct 28, 2012
Terri Tanna wrote:
JACQUES BARZUN, a pioneering cultural historian, reigning public intellectual and longtime Ivy League professor who became a best-selling author in his 90s with the acclaimed "From Dawn to Decadence," has died. He was 104.
Barzun, who taught for nearly 50 years at Columbia University, passed away Thursday evening in San Antonio, where he had lived in recent years, his son-in-law Gavin Parfit said.
Praised by Cynthia Ozick as among "the last of the thoroughgoing generalists," the tall, courtly Barzun wrote dozens of books and essays on everything from philosophy and music to baseball and detective novels.
In 2000, he capped his career with "From Dawn to Decadence," a survey of Western civilization from the Renaissance to the end of the 20th century. The length topped 800 pages, and the theme was uninspiring - the collapse of traditions in modern times - yet it received wide acclaim from reviewers, stayed on best-seller lists for months and wa s nominated for the National Book Award and the National Book Critics Circle prize.
Even the Rolling Stones' Keith Richards said he was reading it.
"The whole thing is a surprise, because scholarship is not exactly the thing people run after these days, or perhaps at any time," Barzun told The Associated Press in 2000.
Along with Lionel Trilling, Dwight Macdonald and others, the French immigrant was a prominent thinker during the Cold War era, making occasional television appearances and even appearing in 1956 on the cover of Time magazine, which cited him as representing "a growing host of men of ideas who not only have the respect of the nation, but who return the compliment."
In 2003, President George W. Bush awarded him a Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation's highest civilian honor, praising Barzun as "a thinker of great discernment and integrity.... Few academics of the last century have equaled his output and his influence." In 2010, he re ceived a National Humanities Medal.
Barzun had firsthand knowledge of much of the 20th century and secondhand knowledge of a good part of the 19th century. His great-grandmother, born in 1830, would give him chocolate and tell him stories, an experience that helped inspire him to become a historian.
A scholar's son, Barzun was born in Creteil, France, in 1907 and grew up in a household where Modernism was the great subject and visitors included Jean Cocteau, Ezra Pound and Guillame Apollinaire, upon whose knee he once sat. But World War I drove the family out of the country and across the ocean to the United States.
"The outbreak of war in August 1914 and the nightmare that ensued put an end to all innocent joys and assumptions," Barzun later wrote. "By the age of ten - as I was later told - my words and attitudes betrayed suicidal thoughts; it appeared that I was 'ashamed' to be still alive."
Reading consoled him, especially "Hamlet," but he never rec overed his early "zest for life." In 1990, he defined himself as a "spirited" pessimist, explaining that he retained a "vivid sight of an earlier world, soon followed by its collapse in wretchedness and folly."
You mean the same Cynthia Ozick who wrote 'The Pagan Rabbi and Other Stories'?
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#121150 Oct 28, 2012
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
More infantile play law from the Play Justice.
1. "[S]ubject to the jurisdiction, thereof" is a phrase in a clause in an amendment to the Constitution. That's news?
2. Aliens have always been subject to the jurisdiction of the United States while in this country. Rephrasing as 'subject to the constitution" does not change reality.
3. The jus soli doctrine in this country concerns who is born a citizen in this country and has nothing to do with foreign citizenship.
4. Irrelevant. BirfoonBoy thinks official recognition of of dual citizenship would be necessary for the US to exercise its sovereign power within its boundaries. Nonsense.
5. so what?
6. According to Play Law. So what?
7. Irrelevant. He was born a citizen in this country per US law. Play Law doesn't count and operation of foreign law is without force or effect within the jurisdiction of the US.
<quoted text>
hahaha!! That phrase, tells you the conditions that must be met to become a US citizen, plus, it also tells you who are subject to the US Constitution. Aliens ain't!
Puss, the remainder of your BS post is, Irrelevant!

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
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 5 min D-U-H 50,040
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 11 min Earthling-1 47,006
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 1 hr RoxLo 1,115,129
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 1 hr JOEL 69,495
Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 1 hr Mandela 68,560
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 2 hr RACE 98,345
Last word + 2 (Mar '12) 3 hr RACE 639

Chicago Jobs

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 ]