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 5,793)

Showing posts 115,841 - 115,860 of173,619
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

RationalState

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#131540
Dec 4, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

RationalState

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#131541
Dec 4, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

RationalState

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#131542
Dec 4, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#131543
Dec 4, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#131549
Dec 4, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#131550
Dec 4, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#131553
Dec 4, 2012
 

Judged:

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#131559
Dec 4, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#131560
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 tax?
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:
<quoted text>
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.
Okay, if it is a fraud, you should have no problem proving it. Does Snopes rebut it?
And yes, I HATE fraud. No, I do not hate people who are on welfare. Just the ones that commit fraud to get it/ After all, they are steeling money from ME as I, unlike the 47% pay income TAXES!!!
And since I hate fraud, you must endorse it!

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#131562
Dec 4, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

You Libtards really didn't think we would ever go away, did you?

Subpoena Granted for Obama’s Occidental College Records 4 December 2012

There has been much controversy surrounding President Barack Obama’s citizenship; and speculation that his Occidental College transcripts will provide proof of foreign citizenship, based on the application and receipt of a ‘non-US citizen’ scholarship to study in the U.S.

Dr. Orly Taitz, Esquire has secured a subpoena, from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, to obtain the following from the Records Custodian at Occidental College:

1) All records related to Barack Hussein Obama, II, also known as Barack Hussein Obama, including, without limitation, application for admission and transcripts.

2) All records related to Barry Soetoro including, without limitation, application for admission and transcripts.

If proof of foreign citizenship is obtained somehow through these documents, then Barack Obama doesn’t meet the basic qualifications for the presidency.

“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.”

Whether or not this is subpoena is upheld remains to be seen, but the stated deadline for the delivery of the documents to Dr. Ortiz’s office is December 14, 2012 at 11:00 a.m.

View the Subpoena: www.obamaballotchallenge.com or www.orlytaitzesq.com

Read more: http://MinuteMenNews.com/2012/12/subpoena-gra...
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#131564
Dec 4, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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
Under strict construction, beloved of Conservatives, unless the Constitution specifically states something, it has no opinion on the matter. And the US Constitution does not bar the US-born children of foreigners from becoming president. It uses the term "Natural Born," which historical research shows was used at the time the Constitution was written to refer to the PLACE OF BIRTH, not to the parents.

That is enough.

However, there is more. For the writers of the US Constitution to be referring to parents in the Natural Born Citizen clause would have meant that they believed that the US-born children of foreigners were not equal to the US-born children of US citizens. Yet they had written in the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..."

To be sure, the writers of the US Constitution did not believe that Indians and slaves were equal to other Americans, but they showed that in many ways. There is no reason to believe that they thought that the US-born children of foreigners were not equal to the US-born children of US citizens UNLESS THEY TOLD US, and they didn't.
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#131566
Dec 4, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

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
Virtually all of English common law was adopted in America. In fact, one of your heroes, John Jay, wrote the common law into the first Constitution of the State of New York. That Constitution, written in 1777, said that the common law will be the law of the State of New York unless and until specifically changed by New York State legislation.

Here are sources to turn to for further research on the meaning of Natural Born Citizen:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-cit...

http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_eviden...

http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_eviden...

http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/bookmarks/fact...

http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/01/natura...

http://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:/www.obama...

http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/...
Grand Birther

Oregon, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#131567
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
Did you know that the very first pages in every law case book describe how the US adopted the English common law tradition?

Probably not, because you're an uneducated mron who rambles on topix 16+ hours a day.

Sorry, you''re comically wrong.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 115,841 - 115,860 of173,619
|
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.

122 Users are viewing the Chicago Forum right now

Search the Chicago Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 2 min Waxman 1,072,180
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 3 min KiMare 48,689
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 9 min Maverick 808 45,479
Abby 7-11 27 min edogxxx 11
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 1 hr JOEL COOL DUDE 68,158
Amy 7-11 1 hr Mister Tonka 13
Chicago's bloody Fourth: 82 shot, 14 dead 1 hr reality is a crutch 7
•••
•••
Chicago Dating

more search filters

less search filters

•••

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 ]
•••