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 (Page 5,777)

Showing posts 115,521 - 115,540 of173,599
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Tea Party Patriot

Chicago, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Rutherfordton, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#131188
Dec 2, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

RationalState

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#131190
Dec 2, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#131194
Dec 2, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#131195
Dec 2, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.
Jacques Ottawa

Toronto, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#131198
Dec 2, 2012
 
LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
More proof of your ignorance. It was MY sarcasm you didn't get. LMAO!!! dumbazz squidshat
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.

Since: Dec 11

Fort Worth, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#131199
Dec 2, 2012
 
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>Read!
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.
Jacques Ottawa

Toronto, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#131200
Dec 2, 2012
 
Tea Party Patriot wrote:
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.
Encouraging to see that birther tea partyer birfoons' spelling and grammar have much improved, not to mention composition. LMAO (LRS tm reg'd)
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#131202
Dec 2, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#131204
Dec 2, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#131205
Dec 2, 2012
 

Judged:

1

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.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 115,521 - 115,540 of173,599
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

69 Users are viewing the Chicago Forum right now

Search the Chicago Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 1 min HughBe 68,145
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 1 min Homer 1,072,021
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 7 min mdbuilder 45,465
Blood on the Fourth of July 22 min reality is a crutch 1
Amy 7-11 48 min Kuuipo 9
Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 1 hr voice of peace 67,529
The rare and elusive Colombian perro caliente s... 1 hr reality is a crutch 1
•••
•••
•••

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 ]
•••