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

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 ... Full Story
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#137107 Jan 15, 2013
Learn to Read wrote:
<quoted text>
Nice fantasy you got there Dale. No substance to it but you've obviously rehearsed
Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana (Indiana 2008 – Appellate Court):“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.”
The USSC can't change the meaning of the 14th, as they tried to do in WKA, that requires an amendment.
The only people that are "and subject to the jurisdiction, thereof", are citizens. If this were not true, then the only requirement for citizenship would be to step on to US soil, the naturalization process would not exist.
Learn to Read

Buffalo Grove, IL

#137108 Jan 15, 2013
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>The USSC can't change the meaning of the 14th, as they tried to do in WKA, that requires an amendment.
The only people that are "and subject to the jurisdiction, thereof", are citizens. If this were not true, then the only requirement for citizenship would be to step on to US soil, the naturalization process would not exist.
Gee - now if only anyone besides you (and Romper) believed this fable.

Purpura v. Obama (New Jersey 2012): 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.”
Learn to Read

Buffalo Grove, IL

#137109 Jan 15, 2013
Jacques Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>Really? Sometimes in life, we get lucky.
Actually my sister did some design work for one of his works (Bluebeard). There is now a very nice restaurant in town by that name (owned by a good friend) they even have one of his typewriters in the bar.
Affirmative Diversity

Louisville, KY

#137110 Jan 15, 2013
GALLUP: Americans far more concerned about economy, debt, unemployment and taxes than guns...
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

#137111 Jan 15, 2013
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>The USSC can't change the meaning of the 14th, as they tried to do in WKA, that requires an amendment.
The only people that are "and subject to the jurisdiction, thereof", are citizens. If this were not true, then the only requirement for citizenship would be to step on to US soil, the naturalization process would not exist.
EVERYONE who is in the USA except for foreign diplomats and their families are subject to the USA because that means having to obey our laws. Everyone who is in the USA except for foreign diplomats and their families has to obey US laws.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#137112 Jan 15, 2013
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>No branch has any power over the other, this would be called checks and balance.
Oooh-Wee birfoon boy just discovered checks and balances. He better report his findings to Chief Justice Roberts. It seems there are no checks or balances on birfoon stupidity.
Affirmative Diversity

Louisville, KY

#137113 Jan 15, 2013
Learn to Read wrote:
<quoted text>
Nice fantasy you got there Dale. No substance to it but you've obviously rehearsed
Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana (Indiana 2008 – Appellate Court):“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.”
WKA was a CITIZEN, NOT a NBC.
That judge was STUPID, just like YOU!
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#137114 Jan 15, 2013
Learn to Read wrote:
<quoted text>
Gee - now if only anyone besides you (and Romper) believed this fable.
Purpura v. Obama (New Jersey 2012): 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.”
by the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which the 14th was built from, no person which is subject to a foreign power will acquire a US citizenship, they are not eligible to be subject to the jurisdiction, thereof.

Gray attempts to obfuscate the meaning of subject to the jurisdiction thereof using dicta:
The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words,All persons born in the United States by the addition and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State

Not only was Gray not sure of what he was stating, he actually was stating the process that was used by some states prior to the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The Act plainly stated who would be citizens, plus it was the first national law dealing with citizenship.
Justus Liebig

Rocky Hill, CT

#137115 Jan 15, 2013
That any alien who shal have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof,. Naturaliza

Yeah, right, the First Congress did not understand jurisdiction of the United States.

LOL
Justus Liebig

Rocky Hill, CT

#137116 Jan 15, 2013
Naturalization Act of 1790
Jacques Ottawa

Scarborough, Canada

#137117 Jan 15, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
By the way, most voting crimes are not prosecuted either. And you Loony-Tooney-Lefties keep saying that since only a few people have been convicted of voting fraud, we should not require voter ID to vote.
Oh, most voting crimes, like all other crimes, are committed by ....Liberals. Liberals always seem to rationalize their criminal activities.
Can you prove the above? Been asking you for a lot of proof lately, yet you never return with any. How come?

Oh, how about a comment on that Muslim country called Cameroon? Funny, you never came back after I corrected you on that.
Learn to Read

Buffalo Grove, IL

#137118 Jan 15, 2013
Affirmative Diversity wrote:
<quoted text>WKA was a CITIZEN, NOT a NBC.
That judge was STUPID, just like YOU!
Tacky rants can't change the rule of law - sorry Birfoon - you may be less wrong than DufusDale (who is so stupid as to claim that he wasn't even a citizen)- but you're still pathetic
Learn to Read

Buffalo Grove, IL

#137119 Jan 15, 2013
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>by the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which the 14th was built from, no person which is subject to a foreign power will acquire a US citizenship, they are not eligible to be subject to the jurisdiction, thereof.

Gray attempts to obfuscate the meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” using dicta:
The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words,“All persons born in the United States” by the addition “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases — children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State…

Not only was Gray not sure of what he was stating, he actually was stating the process that was used by some states prior to the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The Act plainly stated who would be citizens, plus it was the first national law dealing with citizenship.
Still wrong - but still spamming the same fable.

Voeltz v. Obama (2nd suit Florida 2012):“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].
Affirmative Diversity

Louisville, KY

#137120 Jan 15, 2013
The ObamaPhone lady speaks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch... #!
Jacques Ottawa

Scarborough, Canada

#137121 Jan 15, 2013
Affirmative Diversity wrote:
<quoted text>
Does this mean that you admit that "ensconceded" is NOT a word?
BTW, you spelled it wrong again.
Yes, and as usual, you don't read. Ensconced. There I already admitted I was wrong and apologized for having corrected you.

Okay, now what is the biggest mistake of all? Spelling ensconced wrong or continuing to shout over all the rooftops that Obama is not a natural-born U.S. citizen in spite of the house , senate, supreme court, all the governors, various repub foes, etc not questioning his status ? I'll take MY spelling mistake any time against your HUMONGOUS Obama BC mistake.

Now, I said I was wrong and apologized for my 'ensconded"(sic). Your turn now to say you're wrong on Obama's BC and apologize to everyone. Fair is fair, no?
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#137124 Jan 15, 2013
Justus Liebig wrote:
That any alien who shal have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof,. Naturaliza
Yeah, right, the First Congress did not understand jurisdiction of the United States.
LOL
they sure did, you will notice that they did not say "and subject to the jurisdiction, thereof". Only a citizen is subject to the jurisdiction, aliens are here by reciprocal treaties only and are never subject to the Constitution
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#137125 Jan 15, 2013
Learn to Read wrote:
<quoted text>
Still wrong - but still spamming the same fable.
Voeltz v. Obama (2nd suit Florida 2012):“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].
by the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which the 14th was built from, no person which is subject to a foreign power will acquire a US citizenship, they are not eligible to be subject to the jurisdiction, thereof.

Gray attempts to obfuscate the meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” using dicta:
The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words,“All persons born in the United States” by the addition “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases — children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State…

Not only was Gray not sure of what he was stating, he actually was stating the process that was used by some states prior to the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The Act plainly stated who would be citizens, plus it was the first national law dealing with citizenship.

Looks like y'all have about 114+ years of bad law to correct, Gray tried to take the citizenship law back to what it was before the Civil Rights Act of 1866.
Chop-chop!!! LMAO!!!
Learn to Read

Buffalo Grove, IL

#137126 Jan 15, 2013
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>they sure did, you will notice that they did not say "and subject to the jurisdiction, thereof". Only a citizen is subject to the jurisdiction, aliens are here by reciprocal treaties only and are never subject to the Constitution
And yet another court refuses to adopt play law:

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

Wichita, KS

#137127 Jan 15, 2013
Learn to Read wrote:
<quoted text>
Still wrong - but still spamming the same fable.
Voeltz v. Obama (2nd suit Florida 2012):“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].
what is with all of the A? LMAO!!!
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#137128 Jan 15, 2013
Learn to Read wrote:
<quoted text>
And yet another court refuses to adopt play law:
Tisdale v. Obama (Virginia federal court 2012):“It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens.”
Like I stated, y'all got 114+ years of bad law to correct!! LMAO!!!
Chop-chop!!!

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
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 7 min Yeah 1,127,153
food for thought 18 min NO Minimum Skills 1
GOP Votes go 2 dem. votes. 26 min DeathOnlyAnswer 4
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 36 min lides 50,646
Four letter word game (Dec '11) 42 min boundary painter 1,312
amy 1-25 46 min boundary painter 3
Song Titles Only (group/artist in parenthesis m... (Mar '10) 51 min boundary painter 7,825
Chicago Dating
Find my Match

Chicago Jobs

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 ]