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

There are 189892 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.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#130209 Nov 27, 2012
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
The Second Amendment. "Arms" are any weapon that can be used by an individual. A machine gun, bazooka, etc. are crew served weapons but an fully automatic assault rifle is and there are no provisions in the Second Amendment that allows any one or any government to infringe in your rights to have, own, carry a AK-47.
Jacques Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean there were AK-47s when the second amendment was passed? semi-automatic rifles, multiple and up-to 20 bullet magazine hand guns? Don't you think the 2nd amendment is dépassé? What's ANY citizen doing with those weapons which were to be invented 150 years later?
No, but the police and the military carried the same weapons people would carry at the time!
Again, it comes down to the definition of "arm" which is a one person weapon. It is not an attack submarine, a tank, an Apache helicopter, etc. It could be a knife, a sword, a hand gun, a long gun, etc.!
And it has nothing to do with hunting. It has to do with slelf defence, defense of your family and community and your state and your country!
If you do not like the Second Amendment, either amend the amendment or shut up!

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#130210 Nov 27, 2012
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
Also note, there may be 11 African billionaires but there are 394 American billionaires and when you consider that Africa's population is more than three times that of America, that is really a statement.
But while you seem proud of African billionaires, you seem to hate American billionaires.
Poppo wrote:
<quoted text>
I have no feeling one way or the other about billionaires from wherever Rogue.
Again, Africa is a continent; the US is a country so the population difference is not applicable.
And please don’t say you meant the Americas because Africa’s population would certainly not be very much bigger
It does not matter how you cut the mustard, you are far off better if you live in America (the United States of ...) than in any country in Africa. If you can find a better country, please move there.

“zero nuclear weapons”

Since: Sep 08

Perryville

#130211 Nov 27, 2012
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
The Second Amendment. "Arms" are any weapon that can be used by an individual. A machine gun, bazooka, etc. are crew served weapons but an fully automatic assault rifle is and there are no provisions in the Second Amendment that allows any one or any government to infringe in your rights to have, own, carry a AK-47.
<quoted text>
No, but the police and the military carried the same weapons people would carry at the time!
Again, it comes down to the definition of "arm" which is a one person weapon. It is not an attack submarine, a tank, an Apache helicopter, etc. It could be a knife, a sword, a hand gun, a long gun, etc.!
And it has nothing to do with hunting. It has to do with slelf defence, defense of your family and community and your state and your country!
If you do not like the Second Amendment, either amend the amendment or shut up!
I believe in the 2nd Amendment but a civilian has no need for a 50 cal or a full automatic weapon.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#130212 Nov 27, 2012
According to Forbes, there are 1,153 billionaires on this Earth and 400 of them live in the U.S.
We are about 5% of the Earths populations but we have about 25% of all the wealth of the world right here in America.
Out of the 11 billionaires in Africa, only three looked to be "black", one looked Asian, three looked European and the rest looked to be Arabs.
If it were not for the Europeans, Africa would be next to knothing in wealth.

“ad maiora nati sumus ”

Since: Sep 09

Justice Scalia is an Oxymoron

#130213 Nov 27, 2012
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>no such thing as dual-citizenship! In Elg, she was a natural born citizen, the dual-citizenship had nothing to do with the outcome.
Wrong.

Dual citizenship of children born in the United States to alien parents was recognized by courts since the founding of this nation.

In 1795 the United States Supreme Court in Talbot v. Jenson, 3 U.S. 133, 165 (1795) used the term "double citizenship."

In fact, the courts have acknowledged that children with dual citizenship have the right to election to which nationality they will choose at their majority. See Inglis v. Trustees of Sailor's Snug Harbour, 28 U.S.99, 122(1830)("This right of election must necessarily exist, in all revolutions like ours, and is so well established by adjudged cases, that it is entirely unnecessary to enter into an examination of the authorities. The only difficulty that can arise is, to determine the time when the election should have been made); Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242, 245 ("Whether she was of age during this time does not appear. If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina.")

The court in Perkins v. Elg, 99 F. 2d 408, 412 (D.C. Cir. 1938), aff'd, 307 U. S. 325,(1939), articulated the rationale of this right of election when it observed: "no principle is better settled than that birth in the United States, irrespective of the nationality of the parents, confers American citizenship. The right of election of nationality, which it is generally conceded a person born under such circumstances has, cannot be exercised until he attains his majority. The father cannot by any act of his alter the status conferred upon the son by his birth in this country."

Since: Dec 11

Fort Worth, TX

#130214 Nov 27, 2012
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>Did you ever look at the reasons for....
Yes, in general, they were without merit. That means that they were frivolous.

“ad maiora nati sumus ”

Since: Sep 09

Justice Scalia is an Oxymoron

#130215 Nov 27, 2012
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
That is right. The US constitution says nothing about dual citizenship status. Since it does not specifically exclude dual citizens from being eligible and since the meaning of Natural Born Citizen includes even dual citizens, dual citizens ARE eligible. And there have already been several dual citizens who were President of the USA, including Thomas Jefferson and James Madison (who had been made full voting citizens of France by the French National Assembly), and Woodrow Wilson who was a dual citizen of Britain at birth since his mother had never relinquished British citizenship when she became a US citizen by marriage.
Correct.

At the time of his birth in the United States, Obama's owed complete allegiance to the United States. Dual citizenship at birth does not mean dual allegiance at birth. Obama owed no allegiance to his father's country because his father's country had no jurisdiction over Obama while he resided in the United States.

Courts have long recognized that foreign nations have no jurisdiction over its citizens or subjects in the United States. "[T]he legal status of foreign nationals in the United States is determined solely by our domestic law — foreign law confers no privilege in this country that our courts are bound to recognize." Vanity Fair Mills v. T. Eaton Co., 234 F. 2d 633, 638-639 (2nd Cir. 1956). See also Rundell v. La Campagnie Generale Transatlantique, 100 Fed. 655, 660 (7th Cir. 1900)("Such laws may give rise to personal relations between the sovereign and subjects, to be enforced in his own domains; but they do not rightfully extend to other nations.”)

Moreover, United States' jurisdiction over Obama while he was residing in the United States is complete and it does not share its jurisdiction with other nations since other nations do not extend their jurisdiction within the United States. "`no sovereignty can extend its process beyond its own territorial limits, to subject other persons or property to its judicial decisions. Every exertion of authority beyond these limits is a mere nullity, and incapable of binding such persons or property in other tribunals;'" Grover & Baker Sewing Machine Co. v. Radcliffe 137 U.S. 287,296 (1890)

"In our territory, the alien is "subjected," no less completely than the citizen, to the jurisdiction of our courts (jurisdiction in the narrower sense) and to the general authority of our government (jurisdiction in the wider sense). Aliens, in the language of the common law, are temporary subjects of the state in which they sojourn; they owe the sovereign who harbors them in his domains temporary or local allegiance. The phrase "born subject to the jurisdiction" is therefore precisely equivalent to the common law expression "born under the actual obedience." — The constitution, then, invests with citizenship all persons born under the jurisdiction or obedience of the United States, without regard to the nationality of their parents or to the opposing claims of foreign states." Munroe Smith,“The Law of Nationality”( 1883) Page 948-949

As such, United States jurisdiction over Obama was exclusive and absolute at the time of his birth. "The jurisdiction of the nation within its own territory is necessarily exclusive and absolute." Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon, 11 U.S. 116, 136 (1812
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#130216 Nov 27, 2012
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
The US Constitution does recognize that everyone born in the US (not the child of persons with diplomatic immunity or foreign hostile occupying troops) is a natural born US citizen.(A natural born American citizen, hee hee.)
US law determines who is a US citizen, not a British citizen. Duh!
That's why it's called US law, Dumbo.
<quoted text>
Quite the contrary, the constitution only recognizes persons who are eligible to become "subject to the jurisdiction, thereof", remember the "and" part. Aliens born here are not, Obama was born a citizen of his father's country, which would make him an alien. Now remember the US Government can't strip a citizenship away, unless by the request of the individual, by naturalization.
Oh, Obama was a baby! That is right and under the jurisdiction of his father and the father's country of origin.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#130217 Nov 27, 2012
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>no such thing as dual-citizenship! In Elg, she was a natural born citizen, the dual-citizenship had nothing to do with the outcome.
“As municipal law determines how citizenship may be acquired, the same person may possess a dual nationality.” Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325, 329 (1939).

Sorry, loser.
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Further to that the Supreme Court decided in Perkins v. Elg that dual citizenship does not erase natural born citizenship.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#130218 Nov 27, 2012
it raises revenue wrote:
How does a higher tax rate for the wealthy help the economy?
Raising Revenue is good, We also should cut Expenses at the same time
and staring with the 1% makes sense.
Maybe. If it discourages investments, it may be overall bad for our economy. There are intangibles in increasing, or decreasing, taxes.
Just look at the tax loopholes the Democrats closed in the last four years of the Reagan administration.
Sure, for a few years it brought in a little more revenue but then it caused the Bank and S&L debacle of the early 1990's. So, in the end, closing loopholes (increased taxes) actually ended up with less taxes coming in after a year or two.
You do know what an intangible is, don't you? You can prove that the more alcohol you drink, the more likely you are to be involved. You can use something call statistics.
But do you know that people who drive about five mph over the speed limit are LESS likely to cause an accident than people who drive five mph UNDER the speed limit? It is not the difference in speed, it is the type of person that is more likely to drive slower. Like DRUNKS!!!

“ad maiora nati sumus ”

Since: Sep 09

Justice Scalia is an Oxymoron

#130219 Nov 27, 2012
Justice Dale wrote:
Obama was born a citizen of his father's country, this condition has never changed.
Obama was born an alien and still remains one, not eligible to hold the office of POTUS.
Wrong.

The status of Obama's dual citizenship at the time of his birth is completely irrelevant as to his natural born citizenship status.

What is relevant is the fact that he was born in the United States.
Obama was born in the allegiance of the United States. "“All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. United States v. Rhodes, 27 F Cas 785,818 (1866)

Courts on numerous times have held that a native born citizen is a citizen who is not naturalized. United States v. Schwimmer, 279 US 644, 649 (1929)(“Except for eligibility to the Presidency, naturalized citizens stand on the same footing as do native born citizens.”)

In fact, the courts on numerous occasions observed that native born citizens are natural born citizens and thus are eligible to the Presidency. Luria v. United States, 231 US 9, 22 (1913)("Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects, save that of eligibility to the Presidency.")

Furthermore, if Obama was not a natural born citizen then he is either a naturalized citizen or an alien. But this is a false dilemma fallacy since Naturalization Acts do not confer citizenship on native born citizens in the United States nor is he an alien since courts have held that children born in the United States to alien parents are natural born citizen.

In Podea v. Marshall, 83 F. Supp. 216, 219-220(ED NY 1949 )
the court noted:
"It is a long recognized and well established principle that plaintiff acquired American citizenship upon his birth on September 21, 1912, at Youngstown, Ohio, even though his parents were immigrant aliens.(internal citations omitted) And it is equally well established in our law that the plaintiff, while an infant could not divest himself of such citizenship, whether by his own acts, or the acts of his parents.(internal citations omitted)

In the New Jersey Supreme Court case Benny v. O'Brien, 32 Atl 696 (1895), Justice Van Syckel addressed the issue before the court: "The question presented is whether a person born in this country of alien parents, who, prior to his birth, had their domicile here, is a citizen of the United States?"
In answering in the affirmative Justice Van Syckel declared:“The words of the fourteenth amendment are, "born in the United States and subject to the Jurisdiction thereof." Those provisions by implication concede that there may be instances in which the right to citizenship does not attach by reason of birth in this country. Two facts must concur: the person must be born here, and he must be subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States according to the fourteenth amendment, which means, according to the civil rights act, that the person born here is not subject to any foreign power. Allan Benny, whose parents were 'domiciled here at the time of his birth, is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and is not subject to any foreign power.” Id

As such, Obama's dual citizenship status at birth is legally irrelevant and immaterial since courts have held that mere birth in the United States is sufficient to confer natural born citizenship status.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#130220 Nov 27, 2012
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
According to Forbes, there are 1,153 billionaires on this Earth and 400 of them live in the U.S.
We are about 5% of the Earths populations but we have about 25% of all the wealth of the world right here in America.
Out of the 11 billionaires in Africa, only three looked to be "black", one looked Asian, three looked European and the rest looked to be Arabs.
If it were not for the Europeans, Africa would be next to knothing in wealth.
Only 3 of 11 "looked to European" yet Rouge seems to believe "were not for the Europeans" Africa would be next to nothing.
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#130221 Nov 27, 2012
Atticus Tiberius Finch wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong.
Dual citizenship of children born in the United States to alien parents was recognized by courts since the founding of this nation.
In 1795 the United States Supreme Court in Talbot v. Jenson, 3 U.S. 133, 165 (1795) used the term "double citizenship."
In fact, the courts have acknowledged that children with dual citizenship have the right to election to which nationality they will choose at their majority. See Inglis v. Trustees of Sailor's Snug Harbour, 28 U.S.99, 122(1830)("This right of election must necessarily exist, in all revolutions like ours, and is so well established by adjudged cases, that it is entirely unnecessary to enter into an examination of the authorities. The only difficulty that can arise is, to determine the time when the election should have been made); Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242, 245 ("Whether she was of age during this time does not appear. If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina.")
The court in Perkins v. Elg, 99 F. 2d 408, 412 (D.C. Cir. 1938), aff'd, 307 U. S. 325,(1939), articulated the rationale of this right of election when it observed: "no principle is better settled than that birth in the United States, irrespective of the nationality of the parents, confers American citizenship. The right of election of nationality, which it is generally conceded a person born under such circumstances has, cannot be exercised until he attains his majority. The father cannot by any act of his alter the status conferred upon the son by his birth in this country."
The Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the 14th stopped all of that crap, Elg's parents were citizens, so she was a natural born citizen, the remainder is just unsubstantiated dicta, since Ark could not change the meaning of the 14th without an amendment.
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

#130222 Nov 27, 2012
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>no such thing as dual-citizenship! In Elg, she was a natural born citizen, the dual-citizenship had nothing to do with the outcome.
That is right. There is no such thing as dual citizenship. The fact that a foreign country considers that someone is also a citizen of that country does not affect US law IN THE SLIGHTEST. Our law is not affected by their law. Dual citizenship does not affect US citizenship, and it does not affect Natural Born Citizen status either.

And, guess what, Obama is not a dual citizen. He WAS a dual citizen, but that lapsed long ago. Kenya law does not allow dual citizens, so since Obama was a citizen of the USA he automatically lost Kenyan citizenship when he became 21. In contrast, Jefferson and Madison were dual citizens WHEN THEY WERE PRESIDENT.

ALSO, you are not allowed to make up theories in strict construction interpretation. If the US Constitution does not say "dual citizens are barred" and if the meaning of Natural Born does not exclude dual citizens, and the US Constitution does not bar dual citizens and Natural Born status includes them, so dual citizens are not barred. And, as noted, Obama is not a dual citizen; he is a FORMER dual citizen.

“ad maiora nati sumus ”

Since: Sep 09

Justice Scalia is an Oxymoron

#130223 Nov 27, 2012
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>Quite the contrary, the constitution only recognizes persons who are eligible to become "subject to the jurisdiction, thereof", remember the "and" part. Aliens born here are not, Obama was born a citizen of his father's country, which would make him an alien. Now remember the US Government can't strip a citizenship away, unless by the request of the individual, by naturalization.
Oh, Obama was a baby! That is right and under the jurisdiction of his father and the father's country of origin.
Your interpretation of the the 14th Amendment is wrong. The 14th Amendment defines who is an United States citizen. It has nothing to do with the status of an alien. In fact, courts have recognized that aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

"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)

"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)
Jacques Ottawa

Toronto, Canada

#130224 Nov 27, 2012
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
According to Forbes, there are 1,153 billionaires on this Earth and 400 of them live in the U.S.
We are about 5% of the Earths populations but we have about 25% of all the wealth of the world right here in America.
Out of the 11 billionaires in Africa, only three looked to be "black", one looked Asian, three looked European and the rest looked to be Arabs.
If it were not for the Europeans, Africa would be next to knothing in wealth.
I have read nitwitted sayings before,but this time, Rogue, I'm sorry, but that one takes the cake. Africa is Africa, the rest of the world is the rest of the world. Hard to explain if one has not spent a bit of time there.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#130225 Nov 27, 2012
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>The Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the 14th stopped all of that crap, Elg's parents were citizens, so she was a natural born citizen, the remainder is just unsubstantiated dicta, since Ark could not change the meaning of the 14th without an amendment.
Sorry, the USSC is not bound by the Play Law "meaning of the 14th".
Atticus Tiberius Finch wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong.
Dual citizenship of children born in the United States to alien parents was recognized by courts since the founding of this nation.
In 1795 the United States Supreme Court in Talbot v. Jenson, 3 U.S. 133, 165 (1795) used the term "double citizenship."
In fact, the courts have acknowledged that children with dual citizenship have the right to election to which nationality they will choose at their majority. See Inglis v. Trustees of Sailor's Snug Harbour, 28 U.S.99, 122(1830)("This right of election must necessarily exist, in all revolutions like ours, and is so well established by adjudged cases, that it is entirely unnecessary to enter into an examination of the authorities. The only difficulty that can arise is, to determine the time when the election should have been made); Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242, 245 ("Whether she was of age during this time does not appear. If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina.")
The court in Perkins v. Elg, 99 F. 2d 408, 412 (D.C. Cir. 1938), aff'd, 307 U. S. 325,(1939), articulated the rationale of this right of election when it observed: "no principle is better settled than that birth in the United States, irrespective of the nationality of the parents, confers American citizenship. The right of election of nationality, which it is generally conceded a person born under such circumstances has, cannot be exercised until he attains his majority. The father cannot by any act of his alter the status conferred upon the son by his birth in this country."

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#130226 Nov 27, 2012
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>Quite the contrary, the constitution only recognizes persons who are eligible to become "subject to the jurisdiction, thereof", remember the "and" part. Aliens born here are not, Obama was born a citizen of his father's country, which would make him an alien. Now remember the US Government can't strip a citizenship away, unless by the request of the individual, by naturalization.
Oh, Obama was a baby! That is right and under the jurisdiction of his father and the father's country of origin.
Now remember that fantasy law doesn't count.
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
The US Constitution does recognize that everyone born in the US (not the child of persons with diplomatic immunity or foreign hostile occupying troops) is a natural born US citizen.(A natural born American citizen, hee hee.)
US law determines who is a US citizen, not a British citizen. Duh!
That's why it's called US law, Dumbo.

“ad maiora nati sumus ”

Since: Sep 09

Justice Scalia is an Oxymoron

#130227 Nov 27, 2012
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>The Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the 14th stopped all of that crap, Elg's parents were citizens, so she was a natural born citizen, the remainder is just unsubstantiated dicta, since Ark could not change the meaning of the 14th without an amendment.
Wrong.

Ark decision did not change the meaning of the 14th Amendment but rather acknowledged that the 14th Amendment codified the commmon law principle of Jus Soli.

Justice Taft writing for the court in Weedin v. Chin Bow, 274 US 657 (1927)observed:

"The very learned and useful opinion of Mr. Justice Gray, speaking for the Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, establishes that, at common law in England and the United States, the rule with respect to nationality was that of the jus soli,— that birth within the limits of the jurisdiction of the Crown, and of the United States, as the successor of the Crown, fixed nationality, and that there could be no change in this rule of law except by statute,.." Id at 660

Justice Taft further noted:

The majority in that case [Wong Kim Ark], as already said, held that the fundamental principle of the common law with regard to nationality was birth within the allegiance of the Government and that one born in the United States, although of a race and of a parentage denied naturalization under the law, was nevertheless under the language of the FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT a citizen of the United States by virtue of the jus soli embodied in the Amendment. Id at 670 (emphasis added)

"United States nationality depends primarily upon the place of birth, the common law principle of jus soli having been embodied in the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. Nationality may also be acquired by naturalization and lost by expatriation." Cabebe v. Acheson, 183 F. 2d 795, 797 (9th Cir. 1950)

“Our concept of citizenship was inherited from England and, accordingly, was based on the principle that rights conferred by naturalization were subject to the conditions reserved in the grant”. See Calvin's Case, 7 Co. Rep. 1 a, 77 Eng. Rep. 377 (1608). Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S 163, 170 (1964)

“We thus have an acknowledgment that our law in this area follows English concepts with an acceptance of the jus soli, that is, that the place of birth governs citizenship status except as modified by statute.” Rogers v. Bellei, 401 US 815,828(1971)

Need more?
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#130228 Nov 27, 2012
Atticus Tiberius Finch wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong.
The status of Obama's dual citizenship at the time of his birth is completely irrelevant as to his natural born citizenship status.
What is relevant is the fact that he was born in the United States.
Obama was born in the allegiance of the United States. "“All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. United States v. Rhodes, 27 F Cas 785,818 (1866)
Courts on numerous times have held that a native born citizen is a citizen who is not naturalized. United States v. Schwimmer, 279 US 644, 649 (1929)(“Except for eligibility to the Presidency, naturalized citizens stand on the same footing as do native born citizens.”)
In fact, the courts on numerous occasions observed that native born citizens are natural born citizens and thus are eligible to the Presidency. Luria v. United States, 231 US 9, 22 (1913)("Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects, save that of eligibility to the Presidency.")
Furthermore, if Obama was not a natural born citizen then he is either a naturalized citizen or an alien. But this is a false dilemma fallacy since Naturalization Acts do not confer citizenship on native born citizens in the United States nor is he an alien since courts have held that children born in the United States to alien parents are natural born citizen.
In Podea v. Marshall, 83 F. Supp. 216, 219-220(ED NY 1949 )
the court noted:
"It is a long recognized and well established principle that plaintiff acquired American citizenship upon his birth on September 21, 1912, at Youngstown, Ohio, even though his parents were immigrant aliens.(internal citations omitted) And it is equally well established in our law that the plaintiff, while an infant could not divest himself of such citizenship, whether by his own acts, or the acts of his parents.(internal citations omitted)
In the New Jersey Supreme Court case Benny v. O'Brien, 32 Atl 696 (1895), Justice Van Syckel addressed the issue before the court: "The question presented is whether a person born in this country of alien parents, who, prior to his birth, had their domicile here, is a citizen of the United States?"
In answering in the affirmative Justice Van Syckel declared:“The words of the fourteenth amendment are, "born in the United States and subject to the Jurisdiction thereof." Those provisions by implication concede that there may be instances in which the right to citizenship does not attach by reason of birth in this country. Two facts must concur: the person must be born here, and he must be subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States according to the fourteenth amendment, which means, according to the civil rights act, that the person born here is not subject to any foreign power. Allan Benny, whose parents were 'domiciled here at the time of his birth, is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and is not subject to any foreign power.” Id
As such, Obama's dual citizenship status at birth is legally irrelevant and immaterial since courts have held that mere birth in the United States is sufficient to confer natural born citizenship status.
Wrong.

Obama was born under the allegiance of his father's nation, which made him a citizen of that nation, he must be naturalized to be come a citizen of the US.
Of course the Constitution does not recognize a dual-citizenship status. If it does please reference.

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) 54 min Yeah 1,232,946
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 1 hr Brian_G 53,521
legit pain P.I.L.L.S n m/ar.iju/an.a 4 hr Local Chicago 1
Affidavit: White House birth certificate is a F... 4 hr JustTheFACTS 1
Fun Song Combos (Sep '12) 5 hr Lexus1985 425
Music Artists A to Z (Feb '14) 5 hr Lexus1985 407
News 1 dead, 4 wounded in Chicago shootings 8 hr reality is a crutch 1
More from around the web

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]