BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit ...

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

There are 194530 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.

Jacques Ottawa

Toronto, 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

Bristol, CT

#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

Bristol, CT

#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

Arlington, 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

Arlington, 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

Arlington, 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

Bristol, CT

#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

Bristol, CT

#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

Bristol, CT

#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

Arlington, 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
Jacques Ottawa

Toronto, Canada

#131552 Dec 4, 2012
LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Well then disprove it jacqazz. Remember your opinion doesn't disprove it.
Disprove what? How can I disprove something that has not been substantiated? How childish. How ignorant. Let him show SOMEthing that proves what he advanced, then I will either say he's right or if I don't agree, will attempt to disprove it. Sigh.

LRS to neighbour and his wife : "You've been cheating on your wife"
Neighbour : "No, I haven't. Prove it"
LRS : "No, you disprove it".

Get it? Grow up

“ad maiora nati sumus ”

Since: Sep 09

Justice Scalia is an Oxymoron

#131553 Dec 4, 2012
LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
What's the difference between lying and fraud? Are they not both fraud?
The legal difference?

Fraud must be proved by showing that the defendant's actions involved five separate elements:(1) a false statement of a material fact,(2) knowledge on the part of the defendant that the statement is untrue,(3) intent on the part of the defendant to deceive the alleged victim,(4) justifiable reliance by the alleged victim on the statement, and (5) injury to the alleged victim as a result.

Lying is telling a false statement.

Fraud is a tort that a defendant can be held liable if all the above elements are proven. Whereas, lying itself is not a tort unless it is part of a fraud.
Just me

Los Angeles, CA

#131554 Dec 4, 2012
LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
What's the difference between lying and fraud? Are they not both fraud?
Actually they are not the same thing. However, if her intent when she made the statement to the police was to receive financial gain, they could eventually charge her with fraud if she were to receive donations, otherwise she might just be charged with making a false statement. If she were to make that statement to her insurance company, it's definitely fraud.
Just me

Los Angeles, CA

#131555 Dec 4, 2012
LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
I haven't had a drink in 13 years. You?
That's surprising since you are so easily amused.

Last Friday night.
Jacques Ottawa

Toronto, Canada

#131558 Dec 4, 2012
LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
I haven't had a drink in 13 years. You?
Just me wrote:
<quoted text>
That's surprising since you are so easily amused.
Last Friday night.
I suggest he resume his drinking, as Nurse Rached's transquilizers seem to have lost their potency.

“ad maiora nati sumus ”

Since: Sep 09

Justice Scalia is an Oxymoron

#131559 Dec 4, 2012
LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Uh, we left England a long time ago. Try and keep up. You have no argument. And English Common Law was not followed as it was in England. Why make enemies citizens of your own Nation? DA
Uh, well our jurisprudence is based on English Common Law.

Despite the rhetoric from the Vattelities there is a reason why our legal system is referred to as Anglo-American jurisprudence instead of Roman-American jurisprudence or Franco-American jurisprudence. Since the founding of our nation, courts have acknowledged our common law heritage that is rooted in the English common law.

Justice Thomas in his concurring opinion in McDonald v. City of Chicago 561 U.S.____(2010) observed:”After declaring their independence, the newly formed States replaced their colonial charters with constitutions and state bills of rights, almost all of which guaranteed the same fundamental rights that the former colonists previously had claimed by virtue of their English heritage....... Several years later, the Founders amended the Constitution to expressly protect many of the same fundamental rights against interference by the Federal Government. Consistent with their English heritage, the founding generation generally did not consider many of the rights identified in these amendments as new entitlements, but as inalienable rights of all men, given legal effect by their codification in the Constitution's text.“

Furthermore, courts have acknowledged that the common law was a barrier to arbitrary power of the government.”Those who emigrated to this country from England brought with them this great privilege "as their birthright and inheritance, as a part of that admirable common law which had fenced around and interposed barriers on every side against the approaches of arbitrary power." Thompson v. Utah, 170 US 343, 349-350 (1898) quoting 2 Story's Const.§ 1779

Moreover,“When it is said that we have in this country adopted the common law of England, it is not meant that we have adopted any mere formal rules, or any written code, or the mere verbiage in which the common law is expressed. It is aptly termed the unwritten law of England; and we have adopted it as a constantly improving science, rather than as an art; as a system of legal logic, rather than as a code of rules. In short, in adopting the common law, we have adopted its fundamental principles and modes of reasoning, and the substance of its rules as illustrated by the reasons on which they are based, rather than by the mere words in which they are expressed.' Fung Dai Kim Ah Leong v. Lau Ah Leong, 27 F. 2d 582, 584 (9th Cir. 1928 )(internal citation omitted)

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." Smith v. Alabama, 124 U. S. 465, 478 (1888).

DA

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) 17 min USAsince1680 1,263,826
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 2 hr Mister Tonka 100,298
Ask Amy July 31 2 hr Julie 6
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 3 hr litesong 54,356
abby7-31-15 5 hr mrs gladys kravitz 5
News Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 7 hr Mark 52,069
Amy 7-30-15 9 hr Mister Tonka 2
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages