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

There are 188017 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.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#132541 Dec 10, 2012
ORIGIN OF THE WORD AVIATOR

This explains it all. Aviators come from a long line of a secret society, formed around one thousand years ago. They are warriors, and here is the proof! Ground pounders can read it and weep!

A little known fact is the origin of the word, "Aviator." In the immortal words of Johnny Carson: "I did not know that."

Phu Khen (pronounced Foo Ken) 1169-? is considered by some to be the most under-recognized military officer in history. Many have never heard of his contributions to modern military warfare. The mission of this secret society is to bring honor to the name of Phu Khen.

A 'Khen' was a subordinate to a 'Khan'(pronounced 'konn') in the military structure of the Mongol hordes. Khan is Turkish for leader. Most know of the great Genghis Khan, but little has been written of his chain of command.

Khen is also of Turkish origin. Although there is not a word in English that adequately conveys the meaning. Roughly translated, it means, "One who will do the impossible, while appearing unprepared and complaining constantly."

Phu Khen was one of ten Khens that headed the divisions, or groups of hordes, as they were known, of the Mongol Army serving under Genghis Khan. His abilities came to light during the Mongols' raids on the Turkistan city of Bohicaroo. Bohicans were fierce warriors and the city was well fortified. The entire city was protected by huge walls and the hordes were at a standoff with the Bohicans. Bohicaroo was well-stocked and it would be difficult to wait them out. Genghis Khan assembled his Khens and ordered each of them to develop a plan for penetrating the defenses of Bohicaroo.

Operation Achieve Victory (AV) was born. All 10 divisions of Khens submitted their plan. Afte reviewing AV plans 1 thru 7 and finding them all unworkable or ridiculous, Genghis Khan was understandably upset.

It was with much perspiration that Phu Khen submitted his idea, which came to be known as AV 8. Upon seeing AV 8, Genghis was convinced this was the perfect plan and gave his immediate approval. The plan was beautifully simple. Phu Khen would arm his hordes to the teeth, load them into catapults, and hurl them over the wall. The losses were expected to be high, but hey, hordes were cheap! Those that survived the flight would engage the enemy in combat. Those that did not? Well, surely their flailing bodies would cause some damage.

The plan worked and the Bohicans were defeated. From that day on, whenever the Mongol Army encountered an insurmountable enemy, Genghis Khan would give the order, "Send some of Phu Khen's AV 8-ers."

This is believed, though not by anyone outside our secret society, to be the true origin of the word Aviator (AV 8-er).

Phu Khen's AV 8-ers were understandably an unruly mob, not likely to be socially acceptable. Many were heavy drinkers and insomniacs. But when nothing else would do, you could always count on an AV 8-er. A Phu Khen Aviator. Denied, perhaps rightfully so, his place in history, Phu Khen has been, nonetheless, immortalized in prose.

As the great poet Norman Lear never once said:
"There once was a man named Phu Khen, Whose breakfast was whiskey and gin. When e'er he'd fly, he'd give a mighty war cry: Bend over, here it comes again."

Consider it an honor to be a Phu Khen Aviator. Wear the mantle proudly, but speak of it cautiously. It is not always popular to be one of us.

You hear mystical references, often hushed whispers, to 'those Phu Khen Aviators.' Do not let these things bother you. As with any secret society, we go largely misunderstood, prohibited by our apathy from explaining ourselves.

You are expected to always live down to the reputation of the Phu Khen Aviator... a reputation cultivated for centuries, undaunted by scorn or ridicule, unhindered by progress. So drink up, be crude, sleep late, urinate in public, and get the job done.

When others are offended, you can revel in the knowledge that YOU are a PHU KHEN AVIATOR!


Since: May 10

Location hidden

#132542 Dec 10, 2012
Jacques Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
Good one, at long last, though I think, not sure, I've seen it here before. Worth repeating, however. And the interest at $23.07 for 2 weeks is correct to the penny.
My friend worked his way through college in the late 1960's working for Aero Commander where is also helped build Arnold Palmer's AC 560F plane.
http://www.abpic.co.uk/photo/1039378/
Arnold has been flying Cessna Citation business jets for decades now but if you ever see a plane who's N-number ends with "AP", it is probably, or was, one of Arny's planes.
The last I heard Arny has over 18,000 total flying time which for a non-commercial pilot is almost unheard of.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#132543 Dec 10, 2012
For those of you who do not know, to be a pilot flying commercial passenger planes you must have a Class-1 FAA flight physical which means you can not be over 60 years old. But as long as you can pass a Class-2, you can fly non-passenger commercial aircraft. But who wants to fly rubber dog-shit out of China?
none shadowreports posts

Huntley, IL

#132544 Dec 10, 2012
It seems to me it's too late and is now a mute point.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#132545 Dec 10, 2012
Just in case you do not know what a Areo Commander Srike Commander is they were built form the early 1950's well into the 1970's.
And if you don't know who Bob Hover is, he is a legion in his own time. Gen. Doolittle said he was the best stick and rudder pilot he had ever met.

Interesting story.
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
He retired about a decade ago but apparently he is still kicking.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#132546 Dec 10, 2012
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
The new president of Egypt has sacked the military leadership and the new military leadership are all aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood. IMHO we should cut off funding to their military.
Jacques Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
I thought the military leadership had already been sacked two or three months ago, no?
Don't worry, all Morsi needs to do is go too far with his constitution and the army will come right back - not that this will improve the situation in many ways, but the army's against a Moslem theocracy, so that alone is an improvement.
I don't know about the Army hanging in there. They have probably purged anyone who is not part of the Muslim Brotherhood.
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#132547 Dec 10, 2012
Jacques Ottawa wrote:
Jacques Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
What'd I tell ya, Poppo? The bum invents, the bum is challenged, the bum tells you to do his leg work. Oh, Poppo, did you see his election-day predictions that I re-posted? And did you see his response? Scroll forward, ha ha, instead of hiding in shame, he shouts blowhard eptiteths. Birther lying trash
<quoted text>
Well, you know, Poppo, shortly after Novembr 6, I mentioned LRS's election predictions and how prematurely triumphant they were. He challenged me to show him said boasts and predictions. I did. His reaction ? Ballistic. Such is birfoostan. I did love the way he totally lost it yesterday, though. But , enough is enough,'cuz I have this feeling, like it's no longer fun to constantly best a child or a moron. So unless he really pleads for it, I'm gonna let him slither along and ignore him.
Who lost it Lunasquid? You did. When? Friday night! And it was HILARIOUS! And you're right, I'm not doing your legwork, lazyazz. What, do you feel ENTITLED to someone doing your legwork? LMAO!!! Stark raving lunatic running like a scalded azz ape! LMAO!!!

“ad maiora nati sumus ”

Since: Sep 09

Justice Scalia is an Oxymoron

#132549 Dec 10, 2012
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
Absent any amendments to Article II Section 1 Clause 4, the natural born Citizen requirement is still the supreme Law of the Land. The Founding Fathers were very careful in their wording of the Constitution. The words “natural born Citizen” are used only once and that is when the Founding Fathers were discussing the qualifications to hold the highest office of Government. The historical thread from Vattel thru the first Naturalization Law to Chief Justice Morrison Waite’s 1874 Supreme Court opinion is consistent. Each one identifies the requirement that the parents must be citizens in order for their child to be natural born. President
Courts have recognized that the drafters of the constitution of whom most were lawyers were influenced by the principles and history of the common law that we inherited from the English.“The principles and history of the common law were well known to the framers of the Constitution and the members of the First Congress; it was from that system that their terminology was derived; and the provisions of the Constitution and contemporaneous legislation must be interpreted accordingly.” Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen, 244 US 205, 230 (1917)(Pitney, J. dissenting); See also Smith v. Alabama, 124 U. S. 465, 478 (1888)(“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.”)

Since the drafters of the Constitution wrote it in the language of the English common law then according to statutory construction that unless otherwise defined in the Constitution, words are to be taken at their ordinary and contemporary meaning.“ A fundamental canon of statutory construction is that, unless otherwise defined, words will be interpreted as taking their ordinary, contemporary, common meaning.” Perrin v. United States, 444 US 37,42 (1979).

Moreover, if the use of words in the Constitution have a common law meaning then the courts must infer the incorporation of this common law meaning unless the language of the Constitution compels a different meaning.”[G]uided by the principle that where words are employed in a statute which had at the time a well-known meaning at common law or in the law of this country they are presumed to have been used in that sense unless the context compels to the contrary.” Standard Oil Co. of NJ v. United Sates, 221 US 1, 59 (1911)

Furthermore, if words were created not by positive law but rather by judicially created concept then any interpretation of those words other than their common law meaning must be specific and clear. "The normal rule of statutory construction is that if Congress intends for legislation to change the interpretation of a judicially created concept, it makes that intent specific." Stillians v. Iowa, 843 F.2d 276, 280 (8th Cir.1988)(quoting Midlantic Nat'l Bank v. New Jersey Dep't of Envtl. Protection, 474 U.S. 494, 106 S.Ct. 755, 88 L.Ed.2d 859 (1986)). Thus, it is proper to consider that Congress acts with knowledge of existing law, and that "absent a clear manifestation of contrary intent, a newly-enacted or revised statute is presumed to be harmonious with existing law and its judicial construction." Johnson v. First Nat'l Bank of Montevideo, 719 F.2d 270, 277 (8th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1012, 104 S.Ct. 1015, 79 L.Ed.2d 245 (1984). Estate of Wood v. CIR, 909 F. 2d 1155,1160 (8th Cir. 1990)

In other words, If drafters of the Constitution used words in the Constitution that have a common law meaning then it is PRESUMED that drafters intended common law application of the words UNLESS there is language in the Constitution that intended a contrary interpretation of the words.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#132550 Dec 10, 2012
none shadowreports posts wrote:
It seems to me it's too late and is now a mute point.
My opinion is different than your's is.
Do you know a 73 y/o man has just been convicted of a murder that was committed in 1957 when he was just 18 y/o? Should he not have prosecuted him because the murder happened so many years ago?
http://www.rivercountry1017.com/A-Former-Illi...

“ad maiora nati sumus ”

Since: Sep 09

Justice Scalia is an Oxymoron

#132551 Dec 10, 2012
It was Blackstone's influence and not Vattel's influence that was the source of the natural born citizen term in the Constitution.
Blackstone wrote in his Commentaries the following:
The first and most obvious division of the people is into aliens and natural-born subjects. Natural-born subjects are such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England, that is, within the ligeance, or as it is generally called, the allegiance of the king; and aliens, such as are born out of it.(Commentaries of the Laws of England (1765)

Blackstone further 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. Id.

As such, Blackstone recognized and affirmed Chief Justice Lord Coke's opinion in Calvin's Case in 1608 that children born of aliens within the dominions of England were natural born subjects.

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."

Vattel's "Law of Nations" in which he described the Civil Law's concept of citizenship that only natural born citizens are born to citizens of a country; nevertheless, Vattel himself acknowledged the difference between CIVIL LAW and English COMMON LAW regarding natural born citizenship when he wrote in Law of Nations: "Finally, there are countries, such as England, in which the mere fact of birth within the country naturalizes the children of an alien.”

The Constitution does not defined Natural Born Citizen. As such, when language in a statute does not define a common law term, courts are “guided by the principle that where words are employed in a statute which had at the time a well-known meaning at common law or in the law of this country they are presumed to have been used in that sense unless the context compels to the contrary.” Standard Oil Co. of NJ v. United Sates, 221 US 1, 59 (1911)

That at the time of the drafting of the Constitution Blackstone’s Commentaries including his definition of natural born subjects was available to the founding fathers. 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.”

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 books were required readings by lawyers in colonial America.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#132552 Dec 10, 2012
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
Abse
Atticus Tiberius Finch wrote:
<quoted text>
Courts have recognized that the drafters of the constitution of whom most were lawyers were influenced by the principles and history of the common law that we inherited from the English.“The principles and history of the common law were well known to the framers of the Constitution and the members of the First Congress; it was from that system that their terminology was derived; and the provisions of the Constitution and contemporaneous legislation must be interpreted accordingly.” Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen, 244 US 205, 230 (1917)(Pitney, J. dissenting); See also Smith v. Alabama, 124 U. S. 465, 478 (1888)(“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.”)
Since the drafters of the Constitution wrote it in the language of the English common law then according to statutory construction that unless otherwise defined in the Constitution, words are to be taken at their ordinary and contemporary meaning.“ A fundamental canon of statutory construction is that, unless otherwise defined, words will be interpreted as taking their ordinary, contemporary, common meaning.” Perrin v. United States, 444 US 37,42 (1979).
Moreover, if the use of words in the Constitution have a common law meaning then the courts must infer the incorporation of this common law meaning unless the language of the Constitution compels a different meaning.”[G]uided by the principle that where words are employed in a statute which had at the time a well-known meaning at common law or in the law of this country they are presumed to have been used in that sense unless the context compels to the contrary.” Standard Oil Co. of NJ v. United Sates, 221 US 1, 59 (1911)
Furthermore, if words were created not by positive law but rather by judicially created concept then any interpretation of those words other than their common law meaning must be specific and clear. "The normal rule of statutory construction is that if Congress intends for legislation to change the interpretation of a judicially created concept, it makes that intent specific." Stillians v. Iowa, 843 F.2d 276, 280 (8th Cir.1988)(quoting Midlantic Nat'l Bank v. New Jersey Dep't of Envtl. Protection, 474 U.S. 494, 106 S.Ct. 755, 88 L.Ed.2d 859 (1986)). Thus, it is proper to consider that Congress acts with knowledge of existing law, and that "absent a clear manifestation of contrary intent, a newly-enacted or revised statute is presumed to be harmonious with existing law and its judicial construction." Johnson v. First Nat'l Bank of Montevideo, 719 F.2d 270, 277 (8th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1012, 104 S.Ct. 1015, 79 L.Ed.2d 245 (1984). Estate of Wood v. CIR, 909 F. 2d 1155,1160 (8th Cir. 1990)
In other words, If drafters of the Constitution used words in the Constitution that have a common law meaning then it is PRESUMED that drafters intended common law application of the words UNLESS there is language in the Constitution that intended a contrary interpretation of the words.
And that point was addressed in the portion YOU deleted!
Jacques Ottawa

Toronto, Canada

#132555 Dec 10, 2012
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
The new president of Egypt has sacked the military leadership and the new military leadership are all aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood. IMHO we should cut off funding to their military.
<quoted text>
I don't know about the Army hanging in there. They have probably purged anyone who is not part of the Muslim Brotherhood.
No. The army is still pretty independent and will probably step it if Morsi enacts Sharia. The old guard that resigned a while back is still in the shadows, still yields much influence.
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

#132556 Dec 10, 2012
Affirmative Diversity wrote:
The Constitution is as clear as the nose on your face. According to Article II, Section 1, to be eligible to be president or vice president of the United States one must be a “natural born citizen.” That means born in the United States to two American citizen parents. The framers, concerned about destructive foreign influences at a time of the founding of the nation, were wary that the foreign biases of parents could tragically influence the country’s leadership, especially during its formative years. Being largely from England themselves, with British parents, the framers also knew and lived among Tories who did not want to see a new nation arise, but who, comfortable in their noble status and wealth under the British Crown, desired to continue to be ruled by King George III. They did their best to prevent the signing of the Declaration of Independence in 1776, and sought to undermine and subvert the ensuing Revolutionary War effort. Later, not willing to give up, British of their ilk attempted to retake control of the “colonies” and invaded Washington, D.C., in 1812, only to burn down the White House, among other dastardly deeds.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2012/08/scalia-flummoxed-a...
Yeah, this is exactly why the Founding Fathers chose Natural born citizen as a requirement for the Presidency, as opposed to merely being a citizen.
A mere citizen can be born in the US of TWO foreign parents, with loyalties that can be to other countries.
This is a citizen by birth alone.
A Natural born citizen can only be born of TWO US citizens, anywhere in the world, but their loyalties will only be to the US.
A Natural born citizen has loyalties to the US alone at birth, because of the dual parentage loyalties that they have at birth.
The US is the country that their parents were citizens of when they were born.
They are Natural born citizens.
What better way to protect against cabal and intrigue than to require that one be a Natural born citizen before being given the reigns to lead the country?
We know where that person's loyalties lie.
“What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.”(Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)--Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT).

“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are "natural born citizens" and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are "natural born citizens" eligible to serve as President ..."---- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005)[Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyiname...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405297...

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://ohforgoodnesssake.com/...
Jacques Ottawa

Toronto, Canada

#132558 Dec 10, 2012
Poppo? See what I told you about LRS the slug losing it? Check out post 132547, which is pretty remarkable as I did not address him at all.
Johannes

Yucaipa, CA

#132559 Dec 10, 2012
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
For those of you who do not know, to be a pilot flying commercial passenger planes you must have a Class-1 FAA flight physical which means you can not be over 60 years old. But as long as you can pass a Class-2, you can fly non-passenger commercial aircraft. But who wants to fly rubber dog-shit out of China?
I thought that once you reached 60 you couldn't be the captain on a commercial passenger carrier....you had to move to the other seat.
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

#132560 Dec 10, 2012
Affirmative Diversity wrote:
The Constitution is as clear as the nose on your face. According to Article II, Section 1, to be eligible to be president or vice president of the United States one must be a “natural born citizen.” That means born in the United States to two American citizen parents. The framers, concerned about destructive foreign influences at a time of the founding of the nation, were wary that the foreign biases of parents could tragically influence the country’s leadership, especially during its formative years. Being largely from England themselves, with British parents, the framers also knew and lived among Tories who did not want to see a new nation arise, but who, comfortable in their noble status and wealth under the British Crown, desired to continue to be ruled by King George III. They did their best to prevent the signing of the Declaration of Independence in 1776, and sought to undermine and subvert the ensuing Revolutionary War effort. Later, not willing to give up, British of their ilk attempted to retake control of the “colonies” and invaded Washington, D.C., in 1812, only to burn down the White House, among other dastardly deeds.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2012/08/scalia-flummoxed-a...
Yeah, this is exactly why the Founding Fathers chose Natural born citizen as a requirement for the Presidency, as opposed to merely being a citizen.
A mere citizen can be born in the US of TWO foreign parents, with loyalties that can be to other countries.
This is a citizen by birth alone.
A Natural born citizen can only be born of TWO US citizens, anywhere in the world, but their loyalties will only be to the US.
A Natural born citizen has loyalties to the US alone at birth, because of the dual parentage loyalties that they have at birth.
The US is the country that their parents were citizens of when they were born.
They are Natural born citizens.
What better way to protect against cabal and intrigue than to require that one be a Natural born citizen before being given the reigns to lead the country?
We know where that person's loyalties lie.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyiname...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405297...

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://ohforgoodnesssake.com/...
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

#132562 Dec 10, 2012
Affirmative Diversity wrote:
Lower court judges, in myriad cases where the eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama has been challenged, have abdicated – for apparent political reasons to save their own standing in and among the establishment – their responsibility to rule that Obama is not a natural born citizen qualified to be president. Now, with the exit stage left of the one Supreme Court justice conservatives thought had the guts to enforce the will of the framers, and to protect We the People, it is clearer than ever that revolution can no longer be avoided.
Americans no longer have a government run by people with the ethics and courage to protect the nation, and we must now do it for ourselves, hopefully peacefully and legally and with minimal collateral damage to ourselves and our families. But, as the framers experienced in 1776 with a king who did not and would not take into account their grievances, we again have no choice.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2012/08/scalia-flummoxed-a...
Not much chance of a revolution when Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly and the National Review all call birthers CRAZY, and when not one of them---or Romney or McCain or Paul Ryan or Michelle Bachmann or Huckabee---asserts that Obama is not a Natural Born US Citizen.

Seven state courts and one federal court have all ruled on Obama that he is indeed a Natural Born US Citizen because the key Supreme Court ruling is the Wong Kim Ark case (which btw was AFTER Minor v. Happersett) and that the Wong Kim Ark case ruled that the meaning of Natural Born came from the common law, not from Vattel, and that it refers to the place of birth, and that EVERY child born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats is a Natural Born US citizen.
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

#132565 Dec 10, 2012
Affirmative Diversity wrote:
<quoted text>
I told you exactly what a Natural born citizen was and explained why!
A Natural born citizen can only be born of TWO US citizens, anywhere in the world, but their loyalties will only be to the US....Shove your misleading links and kindly exhibit some common sense if you possess any.
Your uninformed opinion does not count.

“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are "natural born citizens" and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are "natural born citizens" eligible to serve as President ..."---- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005)[Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.]

Here are some of the SEVEN state court rulings and the one federal court ruling, all of which have ruled that Obama is a Natural Born Citizen due to the Wong Kim Ark supreme court case (which btw was AFTER Minor v. Happersett) having ruled that every child born in the USA is a Natural Born US citizen due to the fact that Natural Born came from the common law and referred to the PLACE OF BIRTH:

Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana (Indiana 2008 – Appellate Court) ruling:“Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”

Tisdale v. Obama (Virginia federal court 2012) ruling:“It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens.”

Purpura v. Obama (New Jersey 2012) ruling:“No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here.… The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.”

Voeltz v. Obama (2nd suit Florida 2012) ruling:“In addition, to the extent that the complaint alleges that President Obama is not a “natural born citizen” even though born int he United States, the Court is in agreement with other courts that have considered this issue, namely, that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purpose, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.[Citations to Wong, Hollander, Ankeny].

Allen v. Obama (Arizona 2012) ruling:“Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co., 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986(1931), and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President.… Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise”
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

#132567 Dec 10, 2012
Affirmative Diversity wrote:
<quoted text>
I told you exactly what a Natural born citizen was and explained why!
A Natural born citizen can only be born of TWO US citizens, anywhere in the world, but their loyalties will only be to the US.
A Natural born citizen has loyalties to the US alone at birth, because of the dual parentage loyalties that they have at birth.
The US is the country that their parents were citizens of when they were born.
They are Natural born citizens.
What better way to protect against cabal and intrigue than to require that one be a Natural born citizen before being given the reigns to lead the country?
We know where that person's loyalties lie.
We know that Obama's loyalties do not lie with the US.
Have you forgotten about the Americans who died at Benghazi, or did you even know?
Shove your misleading links and kindly exhibit some common sense if you possess any.
You told us what your UNINFORMED OPINION claims is the meaning of Natural Born. And you can keep on repeating your uninformed opinion. But you will not convince a soul, and on December 17, a week from today, the US Electoral College will vote and Obama will win, again, as he did in 2008. And in 2008 birthers and two-fers tried to get members of the US Electoral College to change their votes to vote against Obama. And guess what, not one single one of them changed a single vote; the vote of the electors was exactly the same as the electoral vote in the general election. And then the birthers and two-fers tried to get the members of the US Congress not to confirm Obama's election. And, guess what, not one single member of Congress voted against, the vote to confirm was UNANIMOUS.

That is because Obama really is a Natural Born Citizen due simply to his place of birth, since the meaning of Natural Born citizen comes from the common law and refers to the PLACE of birth, not to the parents of a US-born citizen.

For those who are interested in the FACTS on the meaning of Natural Born and not the speculation of a birther:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyiname ...

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405297 ...

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://ohforgoodnesssake.com/ ...
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#132568 Dec 10, 2012
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
You told us what your UNINFORMED OPINION claims is the meaning of Natural Born. And you can keep on repeating your uninformed opinion. But you will not convince a soul, and on December 17, a week from today, the US Electoral College will vote and Obama will win, again, as he did in 2008. And in 2008 birthers and two-fers tried to get members of the US Electoral College to change their votes to vote against Obama. And guess what, not one single one of them changed a single vote; the vote of the electors was exactly the same as the electoral vote in the general election. And then the birthers and two-fers tried to get the members of the US Congress not to confirm Obama's election. And, guess what, not one single member of Congress voted against, the vote to confirm was UNANIMOUS.
That is because Obama really is a Natural Born Citizen due simply to his place of birth, since the meaning of Natural Born citizen comes from the common law and refers to the PLACE of birth, not to the parents of a US-born citizen.
For those who are interested in the FACTS on the meaning of Natural Born and not the speculation of a birther:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyiname ...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405297 ...
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://ohforgoodnesssake.com/ ...
LMAO!!! You're an idiot. As you've proven over and over! LMAO!!!

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) 5 min RoxLo 1,225,042
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 32 min ritedownthemiddle 53,076
Dear Abby 5-6-15 4 hr Julie 6
Ask Amy 5-6-15 10 hr Mister Tonka 4
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 10 hr helpful explainer 99,415
News Chicago signs compare homeless to rodents 11 hr YesRodentsAll 3
Bill Clinton's Wife. 11 hr BlindHelenKeller 9
More from around the web

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]