BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit ...

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

There are 231200 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.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

United States

#131525 Dec 4, 2012
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>of course he wasn't a visiting alien when his father left, he was an resident alien, that never took the time to be naturalized.
Play law doesn't count.

Sorry child.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#131526 Dec 4, 2012
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
Question, how many people on food stamps have $800 cash in a $200 wallet in a $400 purse? I thought so!!!
The say the average waste and fraud in the private sector is about 15% but in government it is about 30%. And you want me to pay for taz?
MISSING:$400 PURSE HOLDING $800 CASH, PLUS FOOD STAMP CARDS
By: John Hayward
A woman said she noticed her purse missing from her car just before 5 P.M. Sunday. The car was parked at her residence on Hornet Drive. The woman said the car had been locked, and the purse was in the back seat.
The purse was valued at $400, her wallet was valued at $200, and she said there was $800 cash in the purse, according to the police report. Also missing were the woman’s food stamp cards.
http://www.humanevents.com/2012/05/07/missing ...
Just me wrote:
<quoted text>
Rogue, why is the original article not to be found on-line anywhere?
Jacques Ottawa wrote:
You're so right and it's what I've already said. Rogue can't resist a hate headline, a headline that promotes his jaundiced views of people he can't stand. There is no substance to that story, obviously invented and concocted by extreme right-wingers who conveniently bypass corporate welfare, a kind of welfare that dwarfs the one handed to low or no-wage earners. That Rogue would reproduce such an item without first verifying its authenticity is typical of a hate story he just can't turn down.
Two points, if it is a fraud, Snopes would carry it. Next, I feel the same way about corporate welfare but that does not seem to bother Jacques because, AGAIN, he makes a claim that I support corporate welfare.
I am a FISCAL Conservative!!! We need to stop corporate welfare and reduce business taxes.
I also want to do away with the EPA, OSHA, Dept of Labor, Dept.of Energy and the Dept of Education.
By the way, what part of our Constitution give the right of the Federal Government to intrude of State run schools?

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

United States

#131527 Dec 4, 2012
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>Puss, being born a citizen of another nation! Hell, he could have been born in the "Oval Office" and still not be born a citizen of the US, that is what the phrase,"and subject to the jurisdiction, thereof", the Constitution, was created for, you know "no foreign influence", per John Jay.
Play Law pronouncements and $1.25 can get you a ride on the bus.
Jacques Ottawa

Vaughan, Canada

#131528 Dec 4, 2012
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
Jacques Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
Both New Orleans and NY/NJ were hit awfully hard, Rogue. It's your notion that this is just a matter of one wanting more than the other? Compare the populations of N.O. and NY/NJ, and the number of structures affected. That may give you an inkling of why the financial burden may be higher up north. Add inflation of atg least 20% since New Orleans.
As to wasted aid and scams, why don't you query Halliburton. According to Vanity Fair, over $1.2 billion are still unaccounted for. Oh, you can't really ask them, now can you? Halliburton has relocated to Saudi Arabia. Wonder why?
<quoted text>
Isn't it funny how you can just mention Halliburton and the Libtards start to spit blood and only because ...... Dick Cheney had been the CEO when ..... Bill Clinton was president. You do know that Bill Clinton had open contracts no-bid with Halliburton and that Obama also currently has open NO-BID contracts with Halliburton????
Obama’s mounting hypocrisy
The only thing that has changed in Washington is the price tag
......Mr. Obama explicitly stated that he would not tolerate such practices.“I will finally end the abuse of no-bid contracts once and for all,” he thundered to a Grand Rapids, Mich., audience on Oct. 2, 2008.“The days of sweetheart deals for Halliburton will be over when I’m in the White House.” After becoming president, Mr. Obama continued the attack and promised on March 4 to “end unnecessary no-bid and cost-plus contracts.… In some cases, contracts are awarded without competition.… And that’s completely unacceptable.”
That was then; this is now. Last week, the Army revealed that KBR, a former subsidiary of Halliburton, was awarded a no-bid contract worth as much as $568 million through next year. This deal was announced only hours after the Obama Justice Department informed the public that it was joining a suit filed by whistleblowers who allege KBR used kickbacks to get foreign contracts.
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/...
Follow us:@washtimes on Twitter
Halliburton is a rogue company with many spooky subsidiaries that were protected against legal pursuits by the GWB govt, and could be a factor in the hushed resignation of the Attorney General.

Bill Clinton had open no-bid contracts with Halliburton? Care to name a few, and the source please? If source is WND .com or FoxNews.com , forget it.

KBR : Source, please. Oh, thought Halliburton had moved its HQ to Kuwait or some other Arab country because its interests were in that region. Suuuuuure. The US military is now giving foreign firms sensitive military contracts? Well, well. When is Exxon moving its HQ to the Middle East, Rogue, seeing as its main oil business if over there? And if true, the govt is launching a suit against KBR, no? Isn't that what you'd want and what should be done? How do you fault the administration on this?

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

United States

#131529 Dec 4, 2012
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>The United States Attorney General in 1873 ruled the word “jurisdiction” under the Fourteenth Amendment to mean:
The word “jurisdiction” must be understood to mean absolute and complete jurisdiction, such as the United States had over its citizens before the adoption of this amendment… Aliens, among whom are persons born here and naturalized abroad, dwelling or being in this country, are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States only to a limited extent. Political and military rights and duties do not pertain to them.(14 Op. Atty-Gen. 300.)
Of course, I doubt he ever understood the "and subject to the jurisdiction, thereof", but he did have part of it right.
You can't have complete jurisdiction,if you are born under the jurisdiction of another nation, who knows where you will go and what influence will place upon you.
UR going in circles. Chase was not talking about persons born in the United States.

Grow up. UR on the wrong page.
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, loser, go look up the definition of resident alien.(Must be born beyond the limits of the US. Moron.)

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

United States

#131530 Dec 4, 2012
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>in your wildest dreams.
Parallel dimension as understood now, Alice could have been in Wonderland!
No such thing as natural allegiance, allegiance has to be taught, Obama missed the boat on that one.
Again, Play Law doesn't count except in your play room.

C.f., W.L. Hill, 21:2 The Doctrine of Natural Allegiance, 66-69 (1873).
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Play Law doesn't count, loser.
Born in the US: no foreign influence. Natural allegiance: US
Sorry.
Jacques Ottawa

Vaughan, Canada

#131531 Dec 4, 2012
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
Just me wrote:
<quoted text>
Rogue, why is the original article not to be found on-line anywhere?
<quoted text>
Two points, if it is a fraud, Snopes would carry it. Next, I feel the same way about corporate welfare but that does not seem to bother Jacques because, AGAIN, he makes a claim that I support corporate welfare.
I am a FISCAL Conservative!!! We need to stop corporate welfare and reduce business taxes.
I also want to do away with the EPA, OSHA, Dept of Labor, Dept.of Energy and the Dept of Education.
By the way, what part of our Constitution give the right of the Federal Government to intrude of State run schools?
Simple question, Rogue. Who valued the purse at $400 and the wallet at $200? I notice they don't mention the kind of car, that would be too easily debunked, no? There is no source to that story, just an "I heard"...

One last thing. What should be targeted first, corporate welfare or individual welfare fraud?

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

United States

#131532 Dec 4, 2012
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>Sorry, Mr. Obama was not born subject to the jurisdict, therof. At the moiment of his bith he was a citizen of his father's nation, since his father was not a citizen of the US.(Ref. Civil Rights Act of 1866/14th Amendment)
UR a riot. Not one person born in the US of aliens was denied citizenship according to the Civil Rights Act. Apparently BirfoonBoy believes no one in Congress understood the law they passed.

Grow up.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

United States

#131533 Dec 4, 2012
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>You can't dilute any of my post by responding with "Play Law"!
Puss, you are a loser, as stated by the US Constitution. So, STFU!!!
You cannot deny reality by making believe it doesn't exist, unless you live in a rubber room.

Play Law doesn't count.

jurisdiction, n.(14c) 1. A government's general power to exercise authority over all persons and things within its territory;
Black's Law Dictionary (9th ed. 2009).

Ҥ 84. Jurisdiction.

The sovereignty united to the domain establishes the jurisdiction of the nation in her territories, or the country that belongs to her. It is her province, or that of her sovereign, to exercise justice in all the places under her jurisdiction, to take cognisance of the crimes committed, and the differences that arise in the country.”
E. de Vattel
Ellen1

Dedham, MA

#131535 Dec 4, 2012
Dr Jekyll wrote:
<quoted text>I know it has been defined by many, but in the Ark case, it said that Ark was just as much a citizen, as a Natural Born Citizen. It looks like the court knew what a Natural Born Citizen was. Could it have been as Jay described, one without any foreign influence.
The Ark case was right. The meaning of Natural Born really does come from the common law as the historical record of the writings of American leaders at the time shows. There are NO examples of the writers of the Constitution using the term Natural Born to refer to parents, and many examples of them using the term Natural Born just the way that it was in the common law.(And that includes John Jay). And there are several examples of other American writers at the time using the term Natural Born Citizen just the way that Natural Born was used in the common law.
Ellen1

Dedham, MA

#131537 Dec 4, 2012
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>Correct, and all persons born subject to any foreign power.
The only persons born in the USA who are subject to any foreign power are the children of foreign diplomats. Everyone else born in the USA is subject to the USA.
Ellen1

Dedham, MA

#131539 Dec 4, 2012
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>Well, thank you for clarifying what allegiance visiting aliens are under! See I told you aliens are not "subject to the jurisdiction, thereof", the US Constitution, only local laws, according to you.
Sr. owed the US nothing, his son was born subject to his country of origin.
ALL aliens in the USA are subject to the USA except for foreign diplomats. Legally we could draft foreigners who are visiting. We chose not to. They would not be very good soldiers, but we could. During wars, foreigners in a country are what they call "interned," which means that they seized and put into camps. Not a nice thing to do, but we have done it and so did Britain. That is because foreigners in the country, like residents of the country and citizens of the country are SUBJECT TO THE COUNTRY.

The only one in the country who is not subject to the country are foreign diplomats and their families.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

United States

#131540 Dec 4, 2012
KimBoe wrote:
<quoted text>you know, the birth certificate doesn't look 52 years old. it isn't aged. like in the movie schindler's list? the work papers?
he aged the document. the birth certificate doesn't show a bit of age from the .gif
Anything that doesn't look like something from a movie can't be real. Yeah. That's the ticket!

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

United States

#131541 Dec 4, 2012
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
UR going in circles. Chase was not talking about persons born in the United States.
Grow up. UR on the wrong page.
<quoted text>
Note: Chase was not talking about persons born in the US who were not naturalized in foreign countries. His comments concerned persons born abroad as foreign citizens or former US citizens who were naturalized in foreign countries.
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>The United States Attorney General in 1873 ruled the word “jurisdiction” under the Fourteenth Amendment to mean:
The word “jurisdiction” must be understood to mean absolute and complete jurisdiction, such as the United States had over its citizens before the adoption of this amendment… Aliens, among whom are persons born here and naturalized abroad, dwelling or being in this country, are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States only to a limited extent. Political and military rights and duties do not pertain to them.(14 Op. Atty-Gen. 300.)
Of course, I doubt he ever understood the "and subject to the jurisdiction, thereof", but he did have part of it right.
You can't have complete jurisdiction,if you are born under the jurisdiction of another nation, who knows where you will go and what influence will place upon you.
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, loser, go look up the definition of resident alien.(Must be born beyond the limits of the US. Moron.)

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

United States

#131542 Dec 4, 2012
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
ALL aliens in the USA are subject to the USA except for foreign diplomats. Legally we could draft foreigners who are visiting. We chose not to. They would not be very good soldiers, but we could. During wars, foreigners in a country are what they call "interned," which means that they seized and put into camps. Not a nice thing to do, but we have done it and so did Britain. That is because foreigners in the country, like residents of the country and citizens of the country are SUBJECT TO THE COUNTRY.
The only one in the country who is not subject to the country are foreign diplomats and their families.
According to Play Law if you don't eat apple pie you are not under the jurisdiction, thereof.
Ellen1

Dedham, MA

#131543 Dec 4, 2012
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly where in U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark use the words "Natural Born Citizen"?
Your link must be taken from the actual Supreme Court Decision!
"It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established."

The ruling says that the same rule that applied in England and in the American colonies and in the early states APPLIES under the US Constitution.

It also quotes this: " The term "citizen," as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term "subject" in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people, and he who before as a "subject of the king" is now "a citizen of the State.""

In other words, "Natural Born Subjects" are Natural Born Citizens in the USA.
Just me

Los Angeles, CA

#131545 Dec 4, 2012
American Lady wrote:
Thanks. There is always the possibility the woman was either lying for purposes of her insurance claim, or she thought people might take pity on her and give her money. Then there are those people who commit fraud and, if that's the case, hopefully social services will launch an investigation.
Just me

Los Angeles, CA

#131547 Dec 4, 2012
LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
LMAO!!! Are you really that frickin' stupid? I think so! LMAO!!!
How early do you start drinking? You weren't amused in your first posts today so it appears you at least have breakfast before hand.

“ad maiora nati sumus ”

Since: Sep 09

Justice Scalia is an Oxymoron

#131549 Dec 4, 2012
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
The Ark case was right. The meaning of Natural Born really does come from the common law as the historical record of the writings of American leaders at the time shows. There are NO examples of the writers of the Constitution using the term Natural Born to refer to parents, and many examples of them using the term Natural Born just the way that it was in the common law.(And that includes John Jay). And there are several examples of other American writers at the time using the term Natural Born Citizen just the way that Natural Born was used in the common law.
I agree.

It was Blackstone's influence and not Vattel's influence that was the source of the natural born citizen term in the Constitution.

Blackstone noted the difference between Civil Law and Common Law regarding children born of aliens in England:

The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such. In which the constitution of France differs from ours; for there, by their jus albinatus, if a child be born of foreign parents, it is an alien.(Commentaries of the Laws of England (1765)

The natural born citizen language in the Constitution is derived from its English Common Law counterpart natural born subject. This idea is based on courts understanding that the term citizen is analogous with term subject. "The term `citizen,' as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term `subject' in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government."). Rather, the terms are meant to encompass persons living under distinct forms of government: "A monarchy has subjects; a republic has citizens.” Matimak Trading Co. v. Khalily, 118 F. 3d 76 , 85 (2nd Cir. 1997)

The court in Smith v. Alabama, 124 U. S. 465, 478 (1888) stated in clear and concise language the common law's influence in the Constitution:
"The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history."

That at the time of the drafting of the Constitution the drafters were acquainted with Blackstone’s Commentaries including his definition of natural born subjects. Justice Stone observed:“It is noteworthy that Blackstone's Commentaries, more read in America before the Revolution than any other law book.” CJ Hendry Co. v. Moore, 318 US 133 , 151-152 (1943). Similarly, the court in United States v. Green, 140 F. Supp. 117, 120 (SD NY 1956) noted:“ Blackstone, whose Commentaries probably did much to influence the thinking of American lawyers at and before the time of the framing of the Federal Constitution.”

Moreover, "Blackstone's Commentaries had a wide circulation in America at the time of the Constitutional Convention. It is said that sixteen signers of the Declaration of Independence knew the book cover to cover. A source book of legal science, a landmark in law and literature. It is safe to say that it contents were familiar to every American lawyer in public life in 1789 and 1791. Sunray Oil Corp. v.Allbritton, 187 F.2d 475,478 (5th Cir. 1951)

As such, it is inconceivable for the framers of the Constitution to "import" a foreign idea of citizenship based on the bloodline of fathers and not based on the Jus Soli doctrine as enunciated by Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case and reaffirmed by Blackstone in his Commentaries whose book was required reading by lawyers in colonial America.

“ad maiora nati sumus ”

Since: Sep 09

Justice Scalia is an Oxymoron

#131550 Dec 4, 2012
LRS wrote:
Roids R Us,
So what was to be the premise behind America’s first and only constitutional birthright declaration in the year 1866? Simply all children born to parents who owed no foreign allegiance were to be citizens of the United States, that is to say, not only must a child be born within the limits of the United States, but born within the complete allegiance of the United States as a nation – not merely its laws only.
In other words, there is no such thing as American citizenship without allegiance to the nation. Why make citizens of those who owe no allegiance to the country, who might join the forces of another country against you? This goes to the core of American allegiance.
Many make the silly mistake of confusing temporary allegiance to a countries laws under the law of nations with that of allegiance to a nation. In school we pledge allegiance to the flag and the “Republic for which it stands,” not pledge our allegiance to local traffic laws. No one during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries confused owing allegiance to the laws with that of owing allegiance to a nation.
If anyone needs any confirmation of the above conclusion, need only to view Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes the same Congress had adopted as national law in the year 1866:“All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.”
Wrong.

“It was a fundamental rule of the common law of England, that persons born in England and under the allegiance and protection of that government, were English subjects regardless of the nationality of the parents. Those born in England of ambassadors and of enemies having hostile occupancy of a portion of English soil, were not subjects; because not born within the allegiance. An alien domiciled in England owes temporary allegiance in return for protection afforded him and, hence, his child born in England is born in the allegiance of the crown which allegiance, in the child's case, is permanent. Such was the law of the colonies and the law of the United States down to the 14th amendment; and such is still the law here and in England.....The 14th amendment affirms the common-law rule that citizenship follows birth. An alien owes allegiance to the United States while domiciled here, and his children born here are born in the United States and under its jurisdiction. Such allegiance is but local and temporary; still it is strong enough to confer citizenship on his children born here. Samuel Fox Mordecai, Dean of the Law School, Trinity College.“Law Notes –Brief Summaries of the Law (1911) page 167

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 Henry 1,460,300
News Scientists say they have proved climate change ... (Dec '08) 40 min Into The Night 7,951
News Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 51 min TRD 71,241
Are democrats destroyed? 4 hr red dawn 13
The Color of Crime in Chicago. 4 hr red dawn 22
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 4 hr Truth Be Told 104,554
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 5 hr Into The Night 62,353

Chicago Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages