BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit ...

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

There are 194484 comments on the Chicago Tribune story from Jan 8, 2009, titled BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting Obama's citizen.... In it, Chicago Tribune reports that:

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 ...

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Chicago Tribune.

Learn to Read

Indianapolis, IN

#122477 Nov 2, 2012
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>I can see you were a botched abortion, they took your brain and you still lived.
Yep, just an Obotto.
Please let me know if you ever grow tired of being pathetic, hateful and wrong
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#122478 Nov 2, 2012
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
BirfoonBoy: "Sorry states stopped creating citizens, Apr 1866."
That's news?
Wowee-Zowee, state citizenship became derivative! And aliens in this country were before, and after April, 1866, under the jurisdiction of the United States. Play Law doesn't count.
<quoted text>
do you know the difference between "under" and "subject to"?
Check it out.

“ad maiora nati sumus ”

Since: Sep 09

Justice Scalia is an Oxymoron

#122479 Nov 2, 2012
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>what Howard offer was accepted in its entirety and ratified in 1868.
Wrong.

The personal opinions of the drafters of the 14th Amendment
were irrelevant into the meaning of the final language of the 14th Amendment.

Justice Scalia reminds us that "We are governed by laws, not by the intentions of legislators. As the Court said in 1844: "The law as it passed is the will of the majority of both houses, and the only mode in which that will is spoken is in the act itself ...." Aldridge v. Williams, 3 How. 9, 24 (emphasis added). But not the least of the defects of legislative history is its indeterminacy. If one were to search for an interpretive technique that, on the whole, was more likely to confuse than to clarify, one could hardly find a more promising candidate than legislative history....
Judge Harold Leventhal used to describe the use of legislative history as the equivalent of entering a crowded cocktail party and looking over the heads of the guests for one's friends. Conroy v. Aniskoff, 507 US 511, 519 (Scalia, J., concurring)

Moreover, "While it is generally true that debates in Congress are not appropriate sources of information from which to discover the meaning of the language of a statute passed by that body. Binns v. United States, 194 US 486 , 495(1904)(internal citation omitted)

Finally, the piece de resistance "By repeated decisions of this court it has come to be well established that the debates in Congress expressive of the views and motives of individual members are not a safe guide, and hence may not be resorted to, in ascertaining the meaning and purpose of the law-making body. Aldridge v. Williams, 3 How. 9, 24; United States v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 91 U.S. 72, 79; United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Association, 166 U.S. 290, 318. Duplex Printing Press Co. v. Deering, 254 US 443, 474 (1923)

Want more?

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#122480 Nov 2, 2012
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>sorry, individual states made citizens in 1790, Apr 1866 changed that, "all persons born in the US and not subject to any foreign power are citizens".
At no time are aliens "subject to the jurisdiction, thereof", unless naturalized, this is plainly stated in the 14th amendment.
BirfoonBoy: "this is plainly stated in the 14th amendment"

Perhaps if you have a special decoder ring from a box of cereal.

Sorry, loser, but ordinary aliens in the US were just as subject to the jurisdiction of the United States before the CRA and 14th amendment as after.

BTW, the 14th Amendment does not expressly define which persons are or are not under the jurisdiction of the United States. Please learn the English language. There is nothing in the amendment that supports the Play Law fantasy that ordinary aliens in the US are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Grow up!
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Dale's Play Law understanding of the Constitution is a product of grandiose fantasy delusions. He thinks the First Congress didn't understand the meaning of "jurisdiction of the United States" as recited in the Naturalization Act of 1790. Aliens were understood to be under the jurisdiction of the United States. Slam dunk.
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#122481 Nov 2, 2012
Learn to Read wrote:
<quoted text>
Please let me know if you ever grow tired of being pathetic, hateful and wrong
Scooter, you will be second on my list!
Guru

Canyon Country, CA

#122483 Nov 2, 2012
Jacques Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
You are so triumphant. But check the record, I have never been that. All the time, even when Obama was 6 to 8 pts ahead, I maintained it was too close to call. I stil maitain that and whoever wins will be a surprise to me.
lol...you know what is too close to call?...your face and obama's ass.

“On Deck”

Since: Aug 08

French Polynesia

#122485 Nov 2, 2012
Islamist Watch

Under Sharia Law in Sudann it is illegal for women to wear pants in public.
The penalty: 40 Lashes

Islam 101
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#122486 Nov 2, 2012
Atticus Tiberius Finch wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong.
The personal opinions of the drafters of the 14th Amendment
were irrelevant into the meaning of the final language of the 14th Amendment.
Justice Scalia reminds us that "We are governed by laws, not by the intentions of legislators. As the Court said in 1844: "The law as it passed is the will of the majority of both houses, and the only mode in which that will is spoken is in the act itself ...." Aldridge v. Williams, 3 How. 9, 24 (emphasis added). But not the least of the defects of legislative history is its indeterminacy. If one were to search for an interpretive technique that, on the whole, was more likely to confuse than to clarify, one could hardly find a more promising candidate than legislative history....
Judge Harold Leventhal used to describe the use of legislative history as the equivalent of entering a crowded cocktail party and looking over the heads of the guests for one's friends. Conroy v. Aniskoff, 507 US 511, 519 (Scalia, J., concurring)
Moreover, "While it is generally true that debates in Congress are not appropriate sources of information from which to discover the meaning of the language of a statute passed by that body. Binns v. United States, 194 US 486 , 495(1904)(internal citation omitted)
Finally, the piece de resistance "By repeated decisions of this court it has come to be well established that the debates in Congress expressive of the views and motives of individual members are not a safe guide, and hence may not be resorted to, in ascertaining the meaning and purpose of the law-making body. Aldridge v. Williams, 3 How. 9, 24; United States v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 91 U.S. 72, 79; United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Association, 166 U.S. 290, 318. Duplex Printing Press Co. v. Deering, 254 US 443, 474 (1923)
Want more?
what Howard offered, was accepted in its entirety (final language) became the law of the 14th amendment.
DICK

Canyon Country, CA

#122488 Nov 2, 2012
UninformedOhio Republican wrote:
<quoted text>
Romney was asked FEMA question 14 times and refused to answer during his fake relief fund.
Maybe he just got tired to being asked the same question, dummy.
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#122489 Nov 2, 2012
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
BirfoonBoy: "this is plainly stated in the 14th amendment"
Perhaps if you have a special decoder ring from a box of cereal.
Sorry, loser, but ordinary aliens in the US were just as subject to the jurisdiction of the United States before the CRA and 14th amendment as after.
BTW, the 14th Amendment does not expressly define which persons are or are not under the jurisdiction of the United States. Please learn the English language. There is nothing in the amendment that supports the Play Law fantasy that ordinary aliens in the US are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Grow up!
<quoted text>
Aliens have never been "subject to the jurisdiction, thereof", this is only a status held by citizens.
"All persons born or naturalized in the US and "subject to the jurisdiction, thereof" are citizens." Who are subject to the jurisdiction, thereof?
American Lady

Danville, KY

#122491 Nov 2, 2012
My "friend"

Enigma wrote:
The citizen is obliged in conscience NOT to follow the directives of civil authorities when they are 'contrary' to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons or the teachings of the Gospel.
Refusing obedience to civil authorities, when their demands are contrary to those of an upright conscience, finds its justification in the distinction between serving God & serving the 'political community'. "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar''s, and to God the things that are God's (Mt.22:21).
"We MUST obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29)
When we citizens are under the oppression of a public authority which oversteps it's competence, we should still not refuse to give or do what is demanded of us by the common good.....but It is legitimate for us to defend our own rights & those of our fellow citizens against the 'abuse of authority' within the limits of the natural law & the Law of the Gospel.
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#122492 Nov 2, 2012
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
BirfoonBoy: "this is plainly stated in the 14th amendment"
Perhaps if you have a special decoder ring from a box of cereal.
Sorry, loser, but ordinary aliens in the US were just as subject to the jurisdiction of the United States before the CRA and 14th amendment as after.
BTW, the 14th Amendment does not expressly define which persons are or are not under the jurisdiction of the United States. Please learn the English language. There is nothing in the amendment that supports the Play Law fantasy that ordinary aliens in the US are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Grow up!
<quoted text>
I love to sit here and watch you hang yourself!!! LMAO!!!!

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#122493 Nov 2, 2012
UninformedOhio Republican wrote:
Obama
Wisconsin +5
Pennsylvania +4.6
Ohio +2.3
Iowa +2
New Hampshire +2
Colorado +.9
No link! No believe!!

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#122494 Nov 2, 2012
Jacques Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
My Neanderthal forehead tells me that every prediction you've made on this thread has been wrong. Every one of them. So will that one. And if Romney wins, you'll be hoping it doesn't happen , but if Obama wins, and damn the consequences to the American people and the rest of the world, you'll be orgasming with joy.
Oh, how many times do I have to ask you what you think of Romney's belief that you, a catholic, are an abomination?
You are so full of recycled dog food!

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#122495 Nov 2, 2012
Guru wrote:
<quoted text>
lol...you know what is too close to call?...your face and obama's ass.
But, but, but Colon Powell endorsed him. Ya know, the same Maj Colon Powell that tried to cover up the My Lai Massacre!
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

#122497 Nov 2, 2012
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>Aliens have never been "subject to the jurisdiction, thereof", this is only a status held by citizens.
"All persons born or naturalized in the US and "subject to the jurisdiction, thereof" are citizens." Who are subject to the jurisdiction, thereof?
Everyone who is in the USA other than foreign diplomats and their families is subject to the jurisdiction of the USA.

“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)

"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." (US Supreme Court ruling in the Wong Kim Ark case.)
Grand Birther

Oregon, OH

#122506 Nov 2, 2012
Howdiy, birfers, just a friendly reminder the Ronald Reagan campaigned in Iowa the day after the Lebanon attack in 1984.
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

#122509 Nov 2, 2012
Real Change is Coming wrote:
<quoted text>
Obama could have had 5 Million of Trump's dollars to give to the Hurricane's victims, but he wouldn't show the records that will prove he is a pResidential fraud.
I think this proves beyond a doubt that Obama does not care about the poor and downtrodden.
Mitt Romney has not showed his college transcripts and passport records either. Yet there is no Trump offer of $5 million to charity if Romney releases them. How unfair. Trump apparently likes Romney, and yet he does not seem eager to give $5 million to charity for Romney releasing transcripts and passport records.

If Trump made the offer to both candidates, then it might be considered a fair offer of $10 million to charity. But he didn’t.

Moreover it seems to show that Trump has suspicions about Obama not being a good student, while he has no suspicions about Romney not being a good student. I wonder why that could be?

BTW, the allegation that Obama was a foreign exchange student came from an April Fool’s article originally written on April 1, 2009.
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#122515 Nov 2, 2012
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Everyone who is in the USA other than foreign diplomats and their families is subject to the jurisdiction of the USA.
“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)
"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." (US Supreme Court ruling in the Wong Kim Ark case.)
your first sentence screwed you, only citizens are subject to the jurisdiction, thereof. See, 14t Citizenship Clause.
drinK the hivE

Anonymous Proxy

#122520 Nov 2, 2012
I Guess Going In The Computer Would Be Like The Opt-Out Mode - Yes It's Awesome But The Knowledge That U Could Have Helped Million' Of People With The Money And That Reality And The Future Pass U By Unaware...

http://cdn01.dailycaller.com/wp-content/uploa...

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_IUYlNU10BMY/Si4hkuW...

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
abby7-30-15 1 hr Kuuipo 7
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 3 hr nanoanomaly 1,263,163
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 3 hr pingpong 54,346
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 4 hr loose cannon 100,289
Holy Name Cathedral High School (Apr '08) 4 hr Gloria Castro 47
Teacher Bully 4 hr cheryl_walsh_is_a... 3
Opportunity knocks at the door only once. 5 hr Q372725176 degree 1
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages