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

Full story: Chicago Tribune

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 ...
Comments
108,621 - 108,640 of 177,401 Comments Last updated 1 hr ago
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?

“SAVING BIRTHERS FROM IGNORANCE”

Since: Jul 09

The Farm North of Hinsdale

#122816 Nov 3, 2012
Terri Tanna wrote:
"Please do a great public service for the Class by telling them where they can find "natural law" written down for anyone to study.
IF you fail to point to a specific writing (or writings), you are admitting that there is NO SUCH thing 'natural law.'"
PLEASE, PLEASE, do not fail the Class.
====
Guru wrote:
Look who's talking...you already got your FAIL!
http://ebengregory.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp -
You admit to having much worldly knowledge.
YOU tell us where the Class can find the totality of "natural law" written down.
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#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

Wichita, KS

#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

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

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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) 5 min THE DEVIL 1,100,369
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 11 min Posted Response 49,530
Last word + 2 (Mar '12) 22 min andet1987 573
Four letter word game (Dec '11) 24 min andet1987 1,258
Word (Dec '08) 29 min andet1987 4,654
Double Word Game (Dec '11) 31 min andet1987 1,455
Diversity is a codeword for white genocide 1 hr ABSOLUTELYjigsWON 2
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 3 hr trying to keep up 97,936
•••
•••

Chicago Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

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 ]
•••