BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit ...

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

There are 197014 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.

Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#131201 Dec 2, 2012
American Lady wrote:
<quoted text>
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/...
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.

“ad maiora nati sumus ”

Since: Sep 09

Justice Scalia is an Oxymoron

#131202 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.
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.

Since: Dec 11

Fort Worth, TX

#131203 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?
Not to worry Jacques, the last poll I saw said that not even 1% of Republicans believe that President Obama is not a citizen. Birthers are not a really huge voting bloc. Try to keep things in perspective. You're trying to rationalize to irrational people.
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#131204 Dec 2, 2012
Atticus Tiberius Finch wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
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.
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#131205 Dec 2, 2012
Atticus Tiberius Finch wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
I don't think the 14th amendment had anything to do with the USAF, did it.

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!

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) 4 min sonicfilter 1,275,820
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 44 min IB DaMann 54,513
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 1 hr Red_Forman 6,417
DONALD TRUMP REVEALED as NIGERIAN PRINCE ! ..bi... 2 hr TRUMP ADMENSTRUATION 1
Loan shark, loan lender, Apply for loan offer 2 hr MonicaJ 1
Fast loan needed for urgent purpose?. Apply now. (Apr '14) 2 hr MonicaJ 2
Hillary fires up crowd in Iowa. 8 hr Pianolegs blows GAS 5
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages