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

“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

North York, 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

Wichita, KS

#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

North York, 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

North York, 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

RationalState

#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?
Jacques Ottawa

North York, Canada

#122826 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.”
Yes, Dogpatch college, it's right "hear", you "here"? LoL.
Pdamerica

Bay Shore, NY

#122827 Nov 3, 2012
Abdul the Camel Jockey wrote:
<quoted text>
Sooooo, Bush made sure that John O'Neill was in the World Trade Center so when his remote controlled jets slammed into the building, he too dies?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =-b5aW08ivHUXX
Fox News Makes You Stupid!

Smarten Up.

MPs say Rupert Murdoch unfit to run company
May 2, 2012 / http://tinyurl.com/7lqquss
Rupert Murdoch is not fit to run a major international company, MPs said on Tuesday, finding him ultimately responsible for the illegal phone hacking that has corroded his global media empire and damaged the political establishment.
The MPs said the 81-year-old News Corp chief lacked credibility, his son James appeared incompetent and the company was guilty of "wilful blindness" towards its staff at the News of the World tabloid.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/05/02/uk-b...

UK lawmakers: Rupert Murdoch unfit to lead company
May 1, 2012 / http://tinyurl.com/6q7gfjd
A committee of British lawmakers called Rupert Murdoch unfit to run his global media empire -- a finding that reflects just how deeply the phone hacking scandal born of his defunct News of the World has shaken the relationship between the press and politics.
The divisive ruling Tuesday against Murdoch, his son James and three of their executives also exposed the waning influence of the media tycoon, and could jeopardize his control of a major broadcaster.
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2012-05/D9UG4R...
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#122828 Nov 3, 2012
Learn to Read wrote:
<quoted text>
That may be the saddest thing you've ever posted. Now I pity you
your pity and $2.00 might buy you a beer.
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#122829 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)
Scooter, this has been answered.
Jacques Ottawa

North York, Canada

#122830 Nov 3, 2012
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>You did? Just shows you how much I pay attention to your post.
Obvioulsy you pay attention to the point of copying my posts almost verbatim. The say imitation is the highest form of flattery. But when you do it, it's NOT.
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#122831 Nov 3, 2012
Grand Birther wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL, birfoon circular lies go nowhere.
You asked and I checked and verified. No need to move the goal posts and pretend you asked for something else.
I however have been asking you very specific question which you are too dumb to answer.
Instead you reply like a child. Typical birfoon behaviour.
Nice try for an imbecile. What was the margin of error? Can't answer? Then shut up. Otay wittle buckwheat? LMAO runny stool
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#122832 Nov 3, 2012
Jacques Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
They've migrated south, thanks for pointing it out, and hopefully, have dropped some of their enormous "goodies" on LRS's head.
As usual, jacqazz of Canada misses the entire point. Which direction did you say the geese were headed? And which way are you headed tomorrow? LMAO dumb dumb dumb beyond belief! shat for brains
Henry

United States

#122833 Nov 3, 2012
Will this be an honest election or will Obama win due to fraud?
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#122834 Nov 3, 2012
Terri Tanna wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
yes an alien can sue, still doesn't change the fact, they are not "subject to the jurisdictioon, thereof", if they were they would be citizens.
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#122835 Nov 3, 2012
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
<quoted text>
Puss, that has to be the dumbest post you have ever written, it doesn't even deserve an answer.
Grand Birther

Oregon, OH

#122836 Nov 3, 2012
LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Nice try for an imbecile. What was the margin of error? Can't answer? Then shut up. Otay wittle buckwheat? LMAO runny stool
LOL, birfoon continues to play move the goalposts while failing miserably to articulate simple answers to simplel questions.

Can birfoon explain in his own words how polls are skewed? By what methods would a pollster skew a poll?

This is simple stats 101 stuff here. You'd think a very wealthy person like LRS would be able to answer this with ease.

You'd also think that a gentelman and scholar like LRS would be able to answer this simple interrogatory: Can you suuport your child's opinion on jurisdiction with Supreme Court case law?

Birfoon would rather act like a child than answer simple questions. Perhaps birfoon is a child.
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#122837 Nov 3, 2012
Jacques Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
Obvioulsy you pay attention to the point of copying my posts almost verbatim. The say imitation is the highest form of flattery. But when you do it, it's NOT.
why would I want to imitate a "bicycle seat sniffer", like you?!!
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#122838 Nov 3, 2012
Grand Birther wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL, birfoon continues to play move the goalposts while failing miserably to articulate simple answers to simplel questions.
Can birfoon explain in his own words how polls are skewed? By what methods would a pollster skew a poll?
This is simple stats 101 stuff here. You'd think a very wealthy person like LRS would be able to answer this with ease.
You'd also think that a gentelman and scholar like LRS would be able to answer this simple interrogatory: Can you suuport your child's opinion on jurisdiction with Supreme Court case law?
Birfoon would rather act like a child than answer simple questions. Perhaps birfoon is a child.
Funny, you say I keep changing the goalposts yet my question has been the same from day one! Imbecile. runny stool (you're just one log on that fresh steaming pile) LMAO
Johannes

Yucaipa, CA

#122839 Nov 3, 2012
Henry wrote:
Will this be an honest election or will Obama win due to fraud?
Fraud you say? Shouldn't that question be asked of GW Bush?

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
Amy 12-19 3 min Sublime1 6
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 5 min USAsince1680 1,153,618
Music Artists A to Z (Feb '14) 16 min not a ghost 357
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 17 min Mandela 71,007
Word (Dec '08) 18 min not a ghost 4,793
Last word + 2 (Mar '12) 20 min not a ghost 717
Fun Song Combos (Sep '12) 22 min not a ghost 389
Chicago Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

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 ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 3:39 am PST

NBC Sports 3:39AM
Jimmy Clausen as surprised as anyone he's starting
Bleacher Report 4:00 AM
Why Do the Colts Still Insist on Feeding Trent Richardson?
Bleacher Report 6:00 AM
Dissecting Most Crucial Matchups in Chicago Bears' Week 16 Contest with Lions
Bleacher Report 6:00 AM
Fantasy Football Week 16: Updated Rankings for Sunday's Action
Bleacher Report 6:02 AM
The Coach That Could Turn Around Bears