BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit ...

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

There are 190216 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.

American Lady

Danville, KY

#131176 Dec 2, 2012
U-Turn: Senate Moves to Eliminate Indefinite Detention Provision of NDAA
...
Of then ten Senators sponsoring the bill, eight of them voted in support of the legislation in December of 2011, including Sen. Feinstein.

While we are in full support of eliminating the indefinite detention provisions of the NDAA, as well as the ambiguous definitions for what is or is not a domestic terrorist as per the Patriot Act, the NDAA in its current form should never have been passed in the first place.

http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/u-turn-...
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#131179 Dec 2, 2012
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Little doggie going in circles chasing his tail.
The US Constitution does not recognize any special status for US citizens who are considered citizens by a foreign country. Children of German parents born in the US have always been natural born citizens and there is nothing you can do about it. Play Law doesn't count.
<quoted text>
Sorry, the US can't strip the citizenship of anyone, unless they request naturalization. That being said, persons born in this nation and subject to a foreign power, do not aquire US Citizenship.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#131180 Dec 2, 2012
LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Tell us the difference moron.
Already have, ad nauseam. You need to explain how anyone can take you seriously that Madison, Kent, the USSC, the Congress, the judges of the US are all wrong when you have a three word vocabulary.
wojar wrote:
President James Madison, Chancellor James Kent, Supreme Court Justices over many generations, appellate and district courts of the US "switch up" jurisdiction and allegiance in LRS's play world.
Grow up.
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#131181 Dec 2, 2012
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Irrelevant. US citizenship is determined according to US law, not foreign law.
Play Law doesn't count.
The President was born in the US subject to the jurisdiction of the United States -- a natural born citizen. There is no Play Law exception.
Yes it does and it has spoken, persons born here subject to a foreign power, do not acquire US citizenship, since they are already subject to the jurisdiction of another nation at birth.
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#131182 Dec 2, 2012
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Already have, ad nauseam. You need to explain how anyone can take you seriously that Madison, Kent, the USSC, the Congress, the judges of the US are all wrong when you have a three word vocabulary.
<quoted text>
Once again the buttflap can't answer an elementary question. LMAO! No surprise though. If you can't understand our laws perhaps you should leave? Dolt.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#131183 Dec 2, 2012
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>Sorry, the US can't strip the citizenship of anyone, unless they request naturalization. That being said, persons born in this nation and subject to a foreign power, do not aquire US Citizenship.
Children born of German (or foreign parents in general) parents in the US have always been natural born US citizens. Germany is free to consider them whatever she wants. Has no bearing according to US law. Play Law doesn't count. C.f. President Obama is PRESIDENT.
wojar wrote:
Little doggie going in circles chasing his tail.
The US Constitution does not recognize any special status for US citizens who are considered citizens by a foreign country. Children of German parents born in the US have always been natural born citizens and there is nothing you can do about it. Play Law doesn't count.
<quoted text>

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#131184 Dec 2, 2012
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>Yes it does and it has spoken, persons born here subject to a foreign power, do not acquire US citizenship, since they are already subject to the jurisdiction of another nation at birth.
Subject to Play Law jurisdiction doesn't count.
wojar wrote:
Irrelevant. US citizenship is determined according to US law, not foreign law.
Play Law doesn't count.
The President was born in the US subject to the jurisdiction of the United States -- a natural born citizen. There is no Play Law exception.
Tea Party Patriot

Chicago, IL

#131185 Dec 2, 2012
only fore more yeers and you democruds are out.

I seen many poles that sayed we are win in 2016 so start packing your bags Obummer Pelosey Reed

Taked our contry back 2016 for reel this time. No, cerialisly.

Its over dumbocrats. This time we meen it.

2016 is neer.
Tea Party Patriot

Chicago, IL

#131186 Dec 2, 2012
New Rassmutant poles sayed Obummer loosing by big land slide in 2016.

Blackened panthers cant fix the vote this time

we tooked are contry back
Tea Party Patriot

Chicago, IL

#131187 Dec 2, 2012
Tell truth Obummer and stop lieing to the Americas.

Reel patriots no that you hired Ben Gazi to murder fore americans as you wached from you hd tv tubes.
Lincoln Duncan

United States

#131188 Dec 2, 2012
Tea Party Patriot wrote:
only fore more yeers and you democruds are out.
I seen many poles that sayed we are win in 2016 so start packing your bags Obummer Pelosey Reed
Taked our contry back 2016 for reel this time. No, cerialisly.
Its over dumbocrats. This time we meen it.
2016 is neer.
President Mitt Romney depended on the same fox polls.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#131189 Dec 2, 2012
LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Once again the buttflap can't answer an elementary question. LMAO! No surprise though. If you can't understand our laws perhaps you should leave? Dolt.
You have it ass backwards, as usual. I don't answer to you. I use allegiance and jurisdiction in the same sense as used by Madison, Kent, the USSC, the Congress, and most every educated person. If you have a problem please explain how they are all wrong. Your problem, not mine.
wojar wrote:
Already have, ad nauseam. You need to explain how anyone can take you seriously that Madison, Kent, the USSC, the Congress, the judges of the US are all wrong when you have a three word vocabulary.
<quoted text>
American Lady

Danville, KY

#131190 Dec 2, 2012
Atticus Tiberius Finch wrote:
<quoted text>

Your folderol theory that this language also exludes aliens as being subject of the jurisdiction of the United States has no basis in fact or in law.
Do yourself a favor and read the congressional debates during the drafting of the 14th Amendment.
REMOVED some to fit mine ...

[Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen THAT I posted yesterday! And you libTARDS are TOO LAZY to read!]

CHAPTER VIII.:
THE CREATION OF A SYSTEM OF RIGHTS OF MAN AND OF CITIZENS DURING THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION.- Georg Jellinek, The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of Citizens:

A Contribution to Modern Constitutional History

CHAPTER VIII.

THE CREATION OF A SYSTEM OF RIGHTS OF MAN AND OF CITIZENS DURING THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION.

{{[10.]The entire text reproduced in Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States}} The WHOLE STORY story HERE!
[http://www.lonang.com/exlibri s/story/]

http://oll.libertyfund.org/...
==========
For you "dweebs" out there:

LAW is VERY complex.

THAT is the REASON the US Constitution was written is such language a "lay person" could read it and understand it!

AS IN:

Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5
No Person except a "natural born" Citizen,{{or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,}} shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

1.Records of the Federal Convention
2.Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 3:§§ 1472--73, 1833

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/...

On July 24th Jay took the floor to express the hope that unanimous agreement could be reached for a second convention, striking a harmonious note: "We are now one people, all pledged for amendments." Toward the very end of the ratifying convention, on July 25th, Jay himself proposed an amendment barring all except "natural born citizens," who were freeholders as well (with some specified exceptions) from eligibility as President, Vice President, or as members of either house of Congress, a restriction even more severe than that which he had proposed to Washington in July of 1787.
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/lweb/digital/exhib...

Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5
Document 1
Records of the Federal Convention
[[[**Farrand, Max, ed. The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787. Rev. ed. 4 vols. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1937.]]]
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/docum...

**Farrand's Records Home Page: U.S. Congressional Documents
memory.loc.gov › American Memory › Lawmaking Home One of the great scholarly works of the early twentieth century was Max Farrand's Published in 1911,
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwfr.html

The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, 3vols.
http://oll.libertyfund.org/...
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#131191 Dec 2, 2012
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
You have it ass backwards, as usual. I don't answer to you. I use allegiance and jurisdiction in the same sense as used by Madison, Kent, the USSC, the Congress, and most every educated person. If you have a problem please explain how they are all wrong. Your problem, not mine.
<quoted text>
Squid, I'm getting tired of teaching you. First, it's backazzwards. Allegiance is loyalty. Jurisdiction is laws. See how simple that is and notice how different they are. Mobarf, you are a problem from head to toe. Take a hike sausageboi. LMAO!!!
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#131192 Dec 2, 2012
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Children born of German (or foreign parents in general) parents in the US have always been natural born US citizens. Germany is free to consider them whatever she wants. Has no bearing according to US law. Play Law doesn't count. C.f. President Obama is PRESIDENT.
<quoted text>
that is just another lie out of the Ark case.
Oh, thanks for being patient, had to get some beer.
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#131193 Dec 2, 2012
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Subject to Play Law jurisdiction doesn't count.
<quoted text>
there you go again, calling the Constitution Play law.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#131194 Dec 2, 2012
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
You have it ass backwards, as usual. I don't answer to you. I use allegiance and jurisdiction in the same sense as used by Madison, Kent, the USSC, the Congress, and most every educated person. If you have a problem please explain how they are all wrong. Your problem, not mine.
<quoted text>
You just refuse to use it in the same sense as the men who actually used it to draft the 14th Amendment. Wonder why that is?

“ad maiora nati sumus ”

Since: Sep 09

Justice Scalia is an Oxymoron

#131195 Dec 2, 2012
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>
In Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, the court was specifically asked to address “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” and held it meant:
The persons declared to be citizens are “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them (U.S.) direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts, or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired.
We know for a fact, Obama was born a citizen of his father's nation, since his father was never a citizen, nor had the intent to become a citizen of the US.
There is a difference between the status of Indians in 1884 when Elk v. Wilkins was decided and the status of Obama born in the United States to a United States citizen and a British subject. Back in 1884, there were tribes recognized by the United States government as being sovereign nations within the PHYSICAL BOUNDARY OF THE UNITED STATES.

In Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884), Justice Gray noted the legal status of Indians tribes and their members:

The Indian tribes, being within the territorial limits of the United States, were not, strictly speaking, foreign States; but they were ALIEN NATIONS, DISTINCT POLITICAL COMMUNITIES, with whom the United States might and habitually did deal, as they thought fit, either through treaties made by the President and Senate, or through acts of Congress in the ordinary forms of legislation. The members of those tribes OWED IMMEDIATE ALLEGIANCE TO THEIR SEVERAL TRIBES. and were not part of the people of the United States. Id at 99

In reading the above cited portion of the opinion, the status of Obama born in the United States to United States citizen and a British subject is factual distinguishable from the status of Indians in 1884 for the following notable reasons:

1. Obama is not a member of an ALIEN NATIONS within the boundaries of the United States;

2. Obama is not a member of DISTINCT POLITICAL COMMUNITIES that the United States deal with through treaties by the President;

3. Obama does not OWED IMMEDIATE ALLEGIANCE to any sovereign nations within the boundaries of the United States.

4. Unlike the tribal members in the Elk case, Obama is part of the "people of the United States” by attending public schools and living in our communities.

As such, Obama who was born in the United States is part of the people of the United States who owes no allegiance to any sovereign nation inside or outside the United States and who is not a member of any “alien or foreign nation within the boundaries of the United States.

Moreover, even thought Obama was born with dual citizenship status HE OWED NO ALLEGIANCE TO THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT since he was NOT UNDER THE JURISDICTION OR PROTECTION OF THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT while he resided in the United States; in other words, BRITISH LAW does not extent into United States.
Jacques Ottawa

Toronto, Canada

#131196 Dec 2, 2012
LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
There are a lot of stupid people in this country. I mean, just take a look; Mobarf, Leaky Lizard, Tainted Tuna, Can't Learn Shat, Hairy Puckeye and the list goes on and on. Dumbazzes. LMAO!!!
But you often say yours is the greatest nation in the world. Now, see, 64.5 million voters opted for Obama. Let's say, 52% of voters, or, half the population if we extrapolate, which means 155 million stupid dumbazzes. Is that correct? What amazes me is that you and your birther ilk keep repeating that yours is the greatest nation on earth. Please explain in your own simpleton words how a nation populated with half its citizens being stupid dumbazzes, fully 155 million, be the greatest. I admit it beats me. You?

“ad maiora nati sumus ”

Since: Sep 09

Justice Scalia is an Oxymoron

#131197 Dec 2, 2012
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>Sorry, the US Constitution does not recognize a dual-citizenship.
Obama was born a citizen of his father's nation, this you can't deny.
Sorry, nowhere in the Constitution does it address the issue of dual citizenship. It is like saying the Constitution doesn't recognize the United States Air Force since there is nothing in the Constitution about the USAF.

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) 32 min John Galt 1,234,295
help troll them pls 2 hr lukeintothelight 1
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 2 hr Mothra 53,497
News Former U.S. House Speaker Hastert indicted on f... 4 hr Mary Moodygan 4
amy 5-28 4 hr Julie 13
Dirty Marge 4 hr That girl 1
Abby 5-28 5 hr Julie 17
More from around the web

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]