BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit ...

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

There are 207609 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: Dec 11

Fort Worth, TX

#131206 Dec 2, 2012
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>an alien is an alien, Obama was born a citizen of his father's nation, a fact you can't dispute.
The remainder of your post is BS.
Actually, in May of last year he made public his long form BC. Seems he was born in Hawaii of all places! That IS still a U.S. state, isn't it?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#131207 Dec 2, 2012
I know many of you were perplexed when #1 Alabama lost to Texas A&M a few weeks ago, and also lost its perfect season, as well.
Coach Nick Saban was also concerned with his team's intensity and play during the game. When reviewing the game film and finding numerous errors, especially by the upperclassmen on the team, he was really concerned.

He was visibly distraught and confused that his most veteran players were making the most errors. When he confronted them, Barrett Jones, a senior lineman, stood up and spoke for the entire team.

"Coach, we're real sorry that we let you and the University down, but after winning two championships, we just didn't want to go meet Obama for a third time."

Saban had no response!
LibtardsRStupid

Clearlake, CA

#131208 Dec 2, 2012
LRS wrote:
In an astounding feat of moronic intransigence, the GOP filibustered the appointment of the US Public Printer by President Barack Hussein Obama.
I bet Rogue Bumpkin has a fantastic story about why that was necessary because socialism something something.
In a astounding feat of moronic intransigence, the Anointed one, the original Obummer, took a 4 million dollar vacation to Hawaii at tax payers expense during the "Economic Cliff"

I bet LRS(Libtards R Stupid) has a fantastic story about why that was necessary because libtards are above reproach!
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#131209 Dec 2, 2012
Jacques Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
Meaningless.
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#131210 Dec 2, 2012
Jacques Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
You confuse sarcasm with "dumbazzbastard, dumbazzbitch, butt flapper, ripping heart through azzhole, dumbazz,squidshat" etc. I'm sorry, LRS, that is NOT sarcasm. Nor is it wit. I know, for birther birfoons, your "original" epithets are thigh slappers, much as in school yard, but for anyone with an IQ approaching 100, they are ignorant, crude and vulgar.
Again meaningless drivel. Memory problems still? You missed the sarcasm dumbazz now you're trying to cover your azz. Pathetic loser wannabe.
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#131211 Dec 2, 2012
Terry Buckeye wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, in May of last year he made public his long form BC. Seems he was born in Hawaii of all places! That IS still a U.S. state, isn't it?
You mean the one without a seal? LMAO!

Since: Dec 11

Fort Worth, TX

#131212 Dec 2, 2012
LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean the one without a seal? LMAO!
Seems to have satisfied a lot of people. The percentage of people that thought he was not a citizen dropped afterward from about 13% to less than 1%. That's because there are always people who won't believe the truth, even when, or especially when, presented with it.
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#131213 Dec 2, 2012
Buttflaps = Roids
Jacques Ottawa

Toronto, Canada

#131214 Dec 2, 2012
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>one thing I have noticed, if I use the word of the frames in debates, it is not admissible, if they use those word, they are the truth.
Go figure! Yes, one should not disparage the mentally challenged, but it looks like the Democrats are all idiots and need help.
Yes, all idiots with a democrat president and democrat senate. Awwww
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#131215 Dec 2, 2012
Terry Buckeye wrote:
<quoted text>
You read, a dictionary! Find a definition of alien that applies to an indigenous population. They were the original inhabitants. That means that everyone else can be defined as alien, but not them.
No, you are wrong there, the US Constitution has plainly stated in the 14th, who are subject to the jurisdiction, thereof, that would be citizens only.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#131216 Dec 2, 2012
LRS wrote:
<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!!!
If jurisdiction is laws, as you say, then an alien subject to the laws of the US is subject to the jurisdiction of the US and his children born in the US are born citizens of the US. Persons born citizens in this country have always been recognized as natural born citizens. BTW it was James Madison in referring to the tie of natural allegiance declared birth in a country to be the most certain criterion of allegiance. "It is what applies in the United States."
Thank you for agreeing with me and acknowledging your errors.
wojar wrote:
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>
American Lady

Danville, KY

#131217 Dec 2, 2012
Terry Buckeye wrote:
<quoted text>
Seems to have satisfied a lot of people. The percentage of people that thought he was not a citizen dropped afterward from about 13% to less than 1%. That's because there are always people who won't believe the truth, even when, or especially when, presented with it.
Not ALL tho, did iT ???
I do believe your % is WRONG!

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Site:LRP:The_Oba...

http://74.6.238.254/search/srp cache?ei=UTF-8&p=akdart+ob ama+eligibility&fr=yfp-t-5 63&u=http://cc.bingj.com/c ache.aspx?q=akdart+obama+eligi bility&d=4987213728712695 &mkt=en-US&setlang=en- US&w=tgHBX26o3dLb7F_LjrS9C urZJKQB_lZB&icp=1&.int l=us&sig=qCWGoUBBkYv_ouEWi n.xkw--
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#131218 Dec 2, 2012
Atticus Tiberius Finch wrote:
<quoted text>
No one is born in the United States is subject to a foreign power except those children born to foreign Ambassadors or enemy troops occupying United States soil.
Mr. HOWARD: I now move to take up House joint resolution No. 127.

The motion was agreed to; and the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the consideration of the joint resolution (H.R. No. 127) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

The first amendment is to section one, declaring that all "persons born in the United States and Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside. I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already (Civil Rights Act of 1866), that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction ( the US Constitution), is by virtue of natural law and national law (Civil Rights Act 1866) a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.

Ratified in its entirety 1868, end of discussion.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#131219 Dec 2, 2012
akpilot wrote:
<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?
The framers of the 14th were quite clear that persons born of ordinary aliens in this country were not born subject to foreign powers and would be born citizens. UR in denial.

wojar wrote:
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.
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#131220 Dec 2, 2012
Terry Buckeye wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, in May of last year he made public his long form BC. Seems he was born in Hawaii of all places! That IS still a U.S. state, isn't it?
He could have been born in the Oval Office, he still was not subject to the jurisdiction, thereof, the Constitution, he was born a citizen of his father's nation. FACT!
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#131221 Dec 2, 2012
Jacques Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, all idiots with a democrat president and democrat senate. Awwww
STFU, you haven't a clue, you take care of your country first, then worry about us.
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#131222 Dec 2, 2012
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
The framers of the 14th were quite clear that persons born of ordinary aliens in this country were not born subject to foreign powers and would be born citizens. UR in denial.
<quoted text>
Mr. HOWARD: I now move to take up House joint resolution No. 127.

The motion was agreed to; and the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the consideration of the joint resolution (H.R. No. 127) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

The first amendment is to section one, declaring that all "persons born in the United States and Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside. I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land (Civil Rights Act 1866) already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction (the US Constitution), is by virtue of natural law (Law of Nations) and national law (Civil Right Act 1866)a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.[1]

Howard made it very clear, the above was ratified in it full entirety and ratified in 1868.

Since: Dec 11

Fort Worth, TX

#131223 Dec 2, 2012
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>He could have been born in the Oval Office, he still was not subject to the jurisdiction, thereof, the Constitution, he was born a citizen of his father's nation. FACT!
Opinion!
You should learn the difference.
Grand Birther

United States

#131224 Dec 2, 2012
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>
Mr. HOWARD: I now move to take up House joint resolution No. 127.
The motion was agreed to; and the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the consideration of the joint resolution (H.R. No. 127) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
The first amendment is to section one, declaring that all "persons born in the United States and Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside. I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already (Civil Rights Act of 1866), that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction ( the US Constitution), is by virtue of natural law and national law (Civil Rights Act 1866) a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.
Ratified in its entirety 1868, end of discussion.
Why can't you explain in your own words what you think the commas in the above mean?

Also, as you know, coloquy is inadmissable, however unrelated to your fake argument it may be.

Since: Dec 11

Fort Worth, TX

#131225 Dec 2, 2012
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>No, you are wrong there, the US Constitution has plainly stated in the 14th, who are subject to the jurisdiction, thereof, that would be citizens only.
You're just trying to be difficult, now. The first line of the first section says that if you're born in the U.S. then you're a citizen. How is it that a Native American is NOT a citizen?

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) 8 min USAsince1680 1,347,681
last post wins! (Dec '10) 16 min Red_Forman 1,593
last post wins! (Apr '13) 17 min Red_Forman 619
abby2-11-16 59 min Sublime1 6
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 1 hr RACE 7,315
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 2 hr RACE 101,422
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 3 hr Captain Obvious 57,313
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages