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
115,241 - 115,260 of 177,384 Comments Last updated 33 min ago

“ad maiora nati sumus ”

Since: Sep 09

Justice Scalia is an Oxymoron

#130862 Nov 30, 2012
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text> "may be admitted to become a citizen thereof", if this is accomplished then he will be "Subject to the jurisdiction" of the US Constitution.
If an alien isn't subject to the jurisdiction of the United States then it means that the United States Naturalization laws are not applicable to an alien residing in the Unitd States since according to your folderol theory an alien is not subject to the Constitution which by the ways provides Congress with the powers to naturalize aliens under Article 1, Section 8.

“ad maiora nati sumus ”

Since: Sep 09

Justice Scalia is an Oxymoron

#130863 Nov 30, 2012
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>under the jurisdiction is not the same as being "subject to the jurisdiction of the Constitution", this is a right that only a citizen enjoys.
If you took Constutional law in law school you should be familiar with the phrase "suspect classification"

If not, let me review it for you.

State laws that discrminate based " upon race, ALIENAGE, and national origin, are inherently suspect and must therefore be subjected to close judicial scrutiny". Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677, 682 (1973)(emphasis added)

"The general rule gives way, however, when a statute classifies by race, ALIENAGE, or national origin. These factors are so seldom relevant to the achievement of any legitimate state interest that laws grounded in such considerations are deemed to reflect prejudice and antipathy — a view that those in the burdened class are not as worthy or deserving as others. For these reasons and because such discrimination is unlikely to be soon rectified by legislative means, these laws are subjected to strict scrutiny and will be sustained only if they are suitably tailored to serve a compelling state interest." Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, 473 U.S. 432, 330 (1985)(emphasis added)

My question to you is this:

If courts have held that laws that discriminate based on alienage is subject to strict scrutiny by the courts then how can these courts have jurisdiction over the matter if aliens by your logic are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

#130864 Nov 30, 2012
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>sure is "and subject to the jurisdiction, thereof", binds you to the jurisdiction of the Constitution.(14th)
All aliens subject to (or under) the jurisdiction of the United States are bound by the laws of this country and are protected by the constitution.

Play Justice Birfoon seems to believe that recitation of a truism proves a logically unrelated falsehood. His statements are the quintessence of the non-sequitur. Furthermore, he states a false conclusion based on a false premise as though the conclusion is proof of his false premise. His reasoning is circular and his premises and conclusions are consistently wrong. He lacks the wherewithal to comprehend that his delusions are quite grandiose and pathological. Indeed, the twit also believe he can create energy from nothing: perpetual motion, a violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics. He's smarter than Clausius, Einstein, Fermi, Schrodinger, Heisenberg and Oppenheimer put together! He also believes he has some sort of IP protection for his worthless delusion even though he is totally ignorant of IP law in this country.

Hee hee: "poor man's patent"

Does the birfoon understand what is required in validity litigation and interference hearings to prove inventorship? Does he understand the requirements under current law to prove diligence prior to filing? Des the birfoon understand that the law changes on March 16th to "first to file" and "first to invent" gets thrown in the trash heap (except for all applications filed before the 16th)?

Nope, the NPD twerp simply goes off on his fantasy trip, and then calls Jacques NPD. That's called projection. What a twerp.
Atticus Tiberius Finch wrote:
<quoted text>
Under the jurisdiction
subject to the jurisdiction
There is no legal distinction between the two phrases.

“ad maiora nati sumus ”

Since: Sep 09

Justice Scalia is an Oxymoron

#130865 Nov 30, 2012
Correction: Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, 473 U.S. 432, 440 (1985)

Jacques Ottawa

Toronto, Canada

#130866 Nov 30, 2012
LRS wrote:
How cheap of the little man. He reeks.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/11/30/de...
I've read the whole partisan Republican party HQ Fox News propaganda. One-sided all of it, and of course, it is what a vulture, namely you, devours.

Oh, what a sight yesterday, Romney looking around the white house, thinking "all this could've been mine", had it not been for my birther and tea party-themed 1916-style campaing. And too old for a shot at it in 2016. Awwwww.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

#130867 Nov 30, 2012
Atticus Tiberius Finch wrote:
<quoted text>
If an alien isn't subject to the jurisdiction of the United States then it means that the United States Naturalization laws are not applicable to an alien residing in the Unitd States since according to your folderol theory an alien is not subject to the Constitution which by the ways provides Congress with the powers to naturalize aliens under Article 1, Section 8.
I doubt the Play Justice can muster the cognitive force necessary to comprehend your clear and straightforward statement.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

#130868 Nov 30, 2012
Atticus Tiberius Finch wrote:
<quoted text>
If you took Constutional law in law school you should be familiar with the phrase "suspect classification"
If not, let me review it for you.
State laws that discrminate based " upon race, ALIENAGE, and national origin, are inherently suspect and must therefore be subjected to close judicial scrutiny". Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677, 682 (1973)(emphasis added)
"The general rule gives way, however, when a statute classifies by race, ALIENAGE, or national origin. These factors are so seldom relevant to the achievement of any legitimate state interest that laws grounded in such considerations are deemed to reflect prejudice and antipathy — a view that those in the burdened class are not as worthy or deserving as others. For these reasons and because such discrimination is unlikely to be soon rectified by legislative means, these laws are subjected to strict scrutiny and will be sustained only if they are suitably tailored to serve a compelling state interest." Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, 473 U.S. 432, 330 (1985)(emphasis added)
My question to you is this:
If courts have held that laws that discriminate based on alienage is subject to strict scrutiny by the courts then how can these courts have jurisdiction over the matter if aliens by your logic are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?
I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for a coherent response from the Play Justice.
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#130869 Nov 30, 2012
Jacques Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
I've read the whole partisan Republican party HQ Fox News propaganda. One-sided all of it, and of course, it is what a vulture, namely you, devours.
Oh, what a sight yesterday, Romney looking around the white house, thinking "all this could've been mine", had it not been for my birther and tea party-themed 1916-style campaing. And too old for a shot at it in 2016. Awwwww.
The last time Omama sent his spending cuts bill to Congress not one Dim voted for it. Hmmm. He's playing games instead of running the Government. He's stuck on politics because that's all he knows. One sided? The truth usually is! BTW bozo, you don't get to own the White House because you're elected. You just like getting blown out of the water, don't ya? pigeon
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#130870 Nov 30, 2012
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
I doubt the Play Justice can muster the cognitive force necessary to comprehend your clear and straightforward statement.
You boys and girls look really stupid. Read the law, when you understand it, come back. LMAO!!! squids
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#130871 Nov 30, 2012
If Omama allows us to go over the cliff, he will be impeached as he should be.
Jacques Ottawa

Toronto, Canada

#130872 Nov 30, 2012
LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
The last time Omama sent his spending cuts bill to Congress not one Dim voted for it. Hmmm. He's playing games instead of running the Government. He's stuck on politics because that's all he knows. One sided? The truth usually is! BTW bozo, you don't get to own the White House because you're elected. You just like getting blown out of the water, don't ya? pigeon
Who said anything about owning the white house? Still, omg, ha Ha, Obama will have resided in the White House exactly 731 days longer than Romney père et fils. And not looking to blow you out of the water, loser. You don't need my help, you're doing just fine blowing yourself out of it just by yourself. Oh oh, here comes nurse Ratched. Time for your tranquilizer. Sleep tight.
Johannes

Yucaipa, CA

#130873 Nov 30, 2012
LRS wrote:
If Omama allows us to go over the cliff, he will be impeached as he should be.
WOW!!! Is that yet another prediction from a birther??? How'd you last group of predictions turn out???? LMAO!!!!
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#130874 Nov 30, 2012
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Infantile claptrap.
"nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"
The 14th amendment is not a treaty and is not superseded by any treaty. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land.
Get over it. President Obama is the President of the United States and no amount of sand box Play Law can change that FACT OF LIFE.
Grow up. Put your robe, gavel, and other toys away and become a man.
<quoted text>
yes it sure is and an alien is not subject to it, unless naturalized.
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#130875 Nov 30, 2012
Atticus Tiberius Finch wrote:
<quoted text>
If an alien isn't subject to the jurisdiction of the United States then it means that the United States Naturalization laws are not applicable to an alien residing in the Unitd States since according to your folderol theory an alien is not subject to the Constitution which by the ways provides Congress with the powers to naturalize aliens under Article 1, Section 8.
an alien is not subject to the jurisdiction of the Constitution, but the Naturalization Act was created for aliens who request citizenship in this country, without the act there wouldn't be any naturalized citizens.
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#130876 Nov 30, 2012
Atticus Tiberius Finch wrote:
<quoted text>
If you took Constutional law in law school you should be familiar with the phrase "suspect classification"
If not, let me review it for you.
State laws that discrminate based " upon race, ALIENAGE, and national origin, are inherently suspect and must therefore be subjected to close judicial scrutiny". Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677, 682 (1973)(emphasis added)
"The general rule gives way, however, when a statute classifies by race, ALIENAGE, or national origin. These factors are so seldom relevant to the achievement of any legitimate state interest that laws grounded in such considerations are deemed to reflect prejudice and antipathy — a view that those in the burdened class are not as worthy or deserving as others. For these reasons and because such discrimination is unlikely to be soon rectified by legislative means, these laws are subjected to strict scrutiny and will be sustained only if they are suitably tailored to serve a compelling state interest." Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, 473 U.S. 432, 330 (1985)(emphasis added)
My question to you is this:
If courts have held that laws that discriminate based on alienage is subject to strict scrutiny by the courts then how can these courts have jurisdiction over the matter if aliens by your logic are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?
very simple the Fuller court had no idea the meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction, thereof", or they tried to change the meaning of it, either way, they violated the Constitution, rendering Ark null and void.
Grand Birther

Oregon, OH

#130877 Nov 30, 2012
Howdy, birfers. How's the pretend definition of jurisdiction working out for you today? I noticed President Barack Hussein Obama is still president, so I'm guessing the courts don't use pretend law.

Anyhow, here's the latest from Oily's (losing) debacle in Mississippi. Her plaintiff wants the out of the case because Oily is such an awful attorney.

http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/115024444...
Grand Birther

Oregon, OH

#130878 Nov 30, 2012
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>an alien is not subject to the jurisdiction of the Constitution, but the Naturalization Act was created for aliens who request citizenship in this country, without the act there wouldn't be any naturalized citizens.
I can pull up 100s of Supreme Court cases right now that don't use birfoon pretend law and show that aliens are indeed subject to the jurisdiction of the US while within its borders.

Sorry. Better luck with whatever lie you cook up tomorrow.
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#130879 Nov 30, 2012
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
All aliens subject to (or under) the jurisdiction of the United States are bound by the laws of this country and are protected by the constitution.
Play Justice Birfoon seems to believe that recitation of a truism proves a logically unrelated falsehood. His statements are the quintessence of the non-sequitur. Furthermore, he states a false conclusion based on a false premise as though the conclusion is proof of his false premise. His reasoning is circular and his premises and conclusions are consistently wrong. He lacks the wherewithal to comprehend that his delusions are quite grandiose and pathological. Indeed, the twit also believe he can create energy from nothing: perpetual motion, a violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics. He's smarter than Clausius, Einstein, Fermi, Schrodinger, Heisenberg and Oppenheimer put together! He also believes he has some sort of IP protection for his worthless delusion even though he is totally ignorant of IP law in this country.
Hee hee: "poor man's patent"
Does the birfoon understand what is required in validity litigation and interference hearings to prove inventorship? Does he understand the requirements under current law to prove diligence prior to filing? Des the birfoon understand that the law changes on March 16th to "first to file" and "first to invent" gets thrown in the trash heap (except for all applications filed before the 16th)?
Nope, the NPD twerp simply goes off on his fantasy trip, and then calls Jacques NPD. That's called projection. What a twerp.
<quoted text>
by treaties with an alien's nation they are under, local, state and Fed statutes, but are never "subject to the jurisdiction, thereof", the US Constitution.
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#130881 Nov 30, 2012
James Tiberius Kirk wrote:
Correction: Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, 473 U.S. 432, 440 (1985)
Doesn't make any difference Jimmy, we are not talking about state law.
If you want to change the Constitution, get yourself an amendment, or STFU.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

RationalState

#130882 Nov 30, 2012
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>by treaties with an alien's nation they are under, local, state and Fed statutes, but are never "subject to the jurisdiction, thereof", the US Constitution.
Nonsense.

What about a stateless alien who has no nation?

Anyone in the US who is subject to Federal statutes is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

Blabbering "jurisdiction of the Constitution" cannot change that fact.

Grow up child.
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
All aliens subject to (or under) the jurisdiction of the United States are bound by the laws of this country and are protected by the constitution.
Play Justice Birfoon seems to believe that recitation of a truism proves a logically unrelated falsehood. His statements are the quintessence of the non-sequitur. Furthermore, he states a false conclusion based on a false premise as though the conclusion is proof of his false premise. His reasoning is circular and his premises and conclusions are consistently wrong. He lacks the wherewithal to comprehend that his delusions are quite grandiose and pathological. Indeed, the twit also believe he can create energy from nothing: perpetual motion, a violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics. He's smarter than Clausius, Einstein, Fermi, Schrodinger, Heisenberg and Oppenheimer put together! He also believes he has some sort of IP protection for his worthless delusion even though he is totally ignorant of IP law in this country.
Hee hee: "poor man's patent"
Does the birfoon understand what is required in validity litigation and interference hearings to prove inventorship? Does he understand the requirements under current law to prove diligence prior to filing? Des the birfoon understand that the law changes on March 16th to "first to file" and "first to invent" gets thrown in the trash heap (except for all applications filed before the 16th)?
Nope, the NPD twerp simply goes off on his fantasy trip, and then calls Jacques NPD. That's called projection. What a twerp.

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) 7 min Incognito4Ever 1,100,216
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 14 min Mimi Seattle 97,933
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 23 min 40ish 4,670
Double Word Game (Dec '11) 42 min Crazy Jae 1,451
Last word + 2 (Mar '12) 43 min Crazy Jae 568
Word (Dec '08) 50 min Crazy Jae 4,651
Song Titles Only (group/artist in parenthesis m... (Mar '10) 59 min _Zoey_ 7,748
Amy 8-29 9 hr Kuuipo 13
•••
•••
•••

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 ]
•••