BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit ...

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

There are 240339 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.

Justice Dale

United States

#122803 Nov 3, 2012
Atticus Tiberius Finch wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong.
"Although the congressional debate concerning § 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment was limited, that debate clearly confirms the understanding that the phrase "within its jurisdiction" was intended in a broad sense to offer the guarantee of equal protection to ALL within a State's boundaries, and to all upon whom the State would impose the obligations of its laws. Indeed, it appears from those debates that Congress, by using the phrase "person within its jurisdiction," sought expressly to ensure that the equal protection of the laws was provided to the ALIEN POPULATION. Representative Bingham reported to the House the draft resolution of the Joint Committee of Fifteen on Reconstruction (H. R. 63) that was to become the Fourteenth Amendment.[13] Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 1033 (1866)."
Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 214 (1982)(emphasis added)
Need More? Okay
"The Amendment [14th], in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of ALL OTHER PERSONS, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. EVERY CITIZEN OR SUBJECT OF ANOTHER COUNTRY, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION, OF THE UNITED STATES. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke, in Calvin's Case, 7 Rep. 6a, "strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;" and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, "if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle." United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 693 (1898))(emphasis added)
Question: what is your problem?
by your logic, your first para is irrelevant.
The USSC can not change the constitution, only citizens are "subject to the jurisdiction, thereof", as plainly stated in the first sentence of the 14th amend.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#122804 Nov 3, 2012
Terri Tanna wrote:
#122,484
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
LARGE NEWSPAPERS?
Well Tootsie, "LARGE" is relative, isn't it? New York City is the 19th largest city in the world by population. And Shitcago is not in the top 50!

“SAVING BIRTHERS FROM IGNORANCE”

Since: Jul 09

The Farm North of Hinsdale

#122805 Nov 3, 2012
Real Change is Coming wrote:
There is NO CONTROVERSY with Mitt Romney
SURE THERE IS.
As much as we "Wild Women Wild about Willard" love him, if Willard didn't get into HLS/BS solely because of his father, why wasn't his academic record strong enough to merit an invitation to try for The Law Review?

“SAVING BIRTHERS FROM IGNORANCE”

Since: Jul 09

The Farm North of Hinsdale

#122806 Nov 3, 2012
Guru wrote:
Polls...
Rassmusen R 50 O 48
Gallup R 52 O 47
Star R 51 O 48
CBS R 17 O 98
NBC R 2 O 164
MSNBC R 0 O 3,000
yep.
Would you want to bet that NOT ONE of the people surveyed by any of those polling services is eligible under the United States Constitution to cast a vote for the President of the United States of America?
Justice Dale

United States

#122807 Nov 3, 2012
Atticus Tiberius Finch wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong again Skippy.
"The Supreme Court has extended significant constitutional protections to aliens within the United States, without distinguishing between those who are here legally or illegally, or between residents and visitors. See, e.g., Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 369, 6 S.Ct. 1064, 1070, 30 L.Ed. 220 (1886)("The Fourteenth Amendment ... is not confined to the protection of citizens....[Its] provisions are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction [of the United States]."); In re Ross, 140 U.S. 453, 464, 11 S.Ct. 897, 900, 35 L.Ed. 581 (1891)(holding that although fifth and sixth amendments do not apply to trials conducted in consular courts, their guarantees apply to "citizens and others within the United States, or who are brought there for trial"). US v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 856 F. 2d 1214, 1222 (9th Cir. 1988), reversed on other grounds, United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 US 259 (1990)
The USSC can not change the Constitution, nor its meaning without an amendment. Aliens have never been subject to the jurisdiction, thereof, this is why we have a naturalization act.
Justice Dale

United States

#122809 Nov 3, 2012
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Looks like Dale needs to have his medication adjusted.
<quoted text>
answer the question, Puss!
Guru

Canyon Country, CA

#122810 Nov 3, 2012
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
Isn't it funny that Grand Birther, Toledo, OH disappears, you pop back in. Are you in Ohio two policing for Obama? You do know Obama will lose Ohio, don't you?
nailed it!

“SAVING BIRTHERS FROM IGNORANCE”

Since: Jul 09

The Farm North of Hinsdale

#122811 Nov 3, 2012
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
Isn't it funny that Grand Birther, Toledo, OH disappears, you pop back in. Are you in Ohio two policing for Obama? You do know Obama will lose Ohio, don't you?
Wild Women Wild for Willard are doing whatever we can for our Willard.
BIG DICK

Canyon Country, CA

#122812 Nov 3, 2012
Terri Tanna wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you really so stupid that you don't realize how stupid you are -- even when scholarship smacks you right in the face?
Morris says you are going down with/on Obama.

“SAVING BIRTHERS FROM IGNORANCE”

Since: Jul 09

The Farm North of Hinsdale

#122813 Nov 3, 2012
Justice Dale wrote:
you still can't get around the fact, aliens have never been nor ever will be "subject to the jurisdiction, thereof", the only way to change this is through an amendment to the Constitution.
You have dodged this question in the past:
Is it YOUR contention that an alien may not sue a United States citizen in a U.S. federal court?
Simple question asking for a YES or a NO.
BIG DICK

Canyon Country, CA

#122814 Nov 3, 2012
Terri Tanna wrote:
<quoted text>
Would you want to bet that NOT ONE of the people surveyed by any of those polling services is eligible under the United States Constitution to cast a vote for the President of the United States of America?
MORRIS says he has a pole just for you, with a shiny little helmet on top of it.
Grand Birther

Oregon, OH

#122815 Nov 3, 2012
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
Well Tootsie, "LARGE" is relative, isn't it? New York City is the 19th largest city in the world by population. And Shitcago is not in the top 50!
Rogue Moron, I must have miseed the post that explains what geese are doing in Canada right now?

Maybe you were busy preparing you explanation for what Reagan was doing campaigning the day after the attacks in Lebanon in 1984?
Justice Dale

United States

#122817 Nov 3, 2012
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
BirfoonBoy doesn't know what he thinks.
<quoted text>
"In the first section of the act of Congress approved March 26, 1790 (1 Stat. at Large, 102), it is enacted:
‘That any alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and UNDER THE JURISDICTION of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof.’"
Grow up.
<quoted text>
"may be (not will be) admitted to become a citizen thereof." If this is aquired, then he is "subject to the jurisdiction, thereof".
One can be under the jurisdiction without being subject to the jurisdiction, thereof.
Aliens have never been subject to the jurisdiction, thereof.
Justice Dale

United States

#122818 Nov 3, 2012
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Somehow he seems to believe that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States" means "all persons subject to the jurisdiction of the United States are citizens."
Bizarre.
Play Justice Dale is not working with a full deck.
that is right all persons "subject to the jurisdiction, thereof", are citizens. Aliens are under the jurisdiction of the US, but are not subject to the jurisdiction, thereof.

“SAVING BIRTHERS FROM IGNORANCE”

Since: Jul 09

The Farm North of Hinsdale

#122819 Nov 3, 2012
Justice Dale wrote:
Aliens have never been subject to the jurisdiction, thereof.
Is it YOUR contention that an alien may not sue a United States citizen in a U.S. federal court?
Simple question asking for a YES or a NO.
Jacques Ottawa

Toronto, Canada

#122821 Nov 3, 2012
Grand Birther wrote:
<quoted text>
Why would there be geese in Canada right now?
They've migrated south, thanks for pointing it out, and hopefully, have dropped some of their enormous "goodies" on LRS's head.
Justice Dale

United States

#122822 Nov 3, 2012
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
It may seem that way if you have a serious cognitive deficit.
Play Justice Dale seems to believe that the 14th Amendment states “all persons subject to the jurisdiction of the United States are citizens” without any other limitations.
Was he kicked in the head by a horse when he was a child?
<quoted text>
that is correct! All limitations have been remove, either by birth to a citizen father or naturalization.
Jacques Ottawa

Toronto, Canada

#122823 Nov 3, 2012
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
You do know that not all Canadian Geese are not Canada Geese, don't you?
Oh, oh, you mean some are not real Canadians? Do we have a Canada goose BC scandal brewing here? Birthers are on the case.
Jacques Ottawa

Toronto, Canada

#122824 Nov 3, 2012
Terri Tanna wrote:
#120,575
“Guru wrote:
“...the rest of us here [SIC] you loud and clear brother.”
#120,299
“Guru wrote:
“BTW, the college I went to was one of the top rated colleges in the nation.”
Dogpatch college.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

United States

#122825 Nov 3, 2012
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>by your logic, your first para is irrelevant.
The USSC can not change the constitution, only citizens are "subject to the jurisdiction, thereof", as plainly stated in the first sentence of the 14th amend.
Only an illiterate but grandiose bumpkin could possibly believe that the 14 Amendment states or implies that only citizens are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Birfoon fantasy:
"All persons subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."

Reality:
"All persons BORN OR NATURALIZED IN THE UNITED STATES, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."

Apparently BirfoonBoy believes "born or naturalized in the United States" are entirely superfluous words and that there was no reason for inclusion of this phrase.

The Play Justice is missing a few cards in his deck.
Atticus Tiberius Finch wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong.
"Although the congressional debate concerning § 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment was limited, that debate clearly confirms the understanding that the phrase "within its jurisdiction" was intended in a broad sense to offer the guarantee of equal protection to ALL within a State's boundaries, and to all upon whom the State would impose the obligations of its laws. Indeed, it appears from those debates that Congress, by using the phrase "person within its jurisdiction," sought expressly to ensure that the equal protection of the laws was provided to the ALIEN POPULATION. Representative Bingham reported to the House the draft resolution of the Joint Committee of Fifteen on Reconstruction (H. R. 63) that was to become the Fourteenth Amendment.[13] Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 1033 (1866)."
Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 214 (1982)(emphasis added)
Need More? Okay
"The Amendment [14th], in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of ALL OTHER PERSONS, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. EVERY CITIZEN OR SUBJECT OF ANOTHER COUNTRY, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION, OF THE UNITED STATES. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke, in Calvin's Case, 7 Rep. 6a, "strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;" and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, "if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle." United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 693 (1898))(emphasis added)
Question: what is your problem?

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
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 3 min My New Alias RULES 1,522,224
Hello Chicago 3 hr JDogs The Name 1
News Ultra Foods in Crestwood offers array of prepar... (Jun '12) 4 hr Bryce 31
Scary Obituary 5 hr Diiiiiiiiiiiiiiii... 12
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 5 hr Rose of Tralee 105,132
News Chicago Restaurants Rally Against Trump Immigra... 9 hr Truth 8
I think she is pissed. From a few years ago. 10 hr SENIORS READ-THIS 6

Chicago Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages