BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit ...

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

There are 234245 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.

LRS

Shreveport, LA

#137271 Jan 15, 2013
Jacques Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
Pork would come from legislators, right? Not in most cases from the W.H. And I have not heard of pork in that legislation. Anything major? I had heard, though it may not be so, that the Repub were trying to attach a spending cut clause to the legislation and that was one of the reasons for the hold-up.
That is correct. Republicans were trying to pay for it without more borrowing! Spending is our problem but no Dems seem interested in the biggest issue we have. 50 - 60B was asked for, fine, where is it coming from? The "0" just said the other day, he wants to raise the debt ceiling but will not consider spending cuts. Makes no sense at all.
Jacques Ottawa

Brampton, Canada

#137272 Jan 15, 2013
Damn. More typos. Please read "Still too many mentally-ill to hospitalize or place in homes, LRS"
Jacques Ottawa

Brampton, Canada

#137273 Jan 15, 2013
LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet, despite what you think, they will remain.
Can I not dream?
Learn to Read

Indianapolis, IN

#137274 Jan 15, 2013
LRS wrote:
<quoted text>If you're that worried about your tax dollars you shouldn't be fretting over this trivial amount!
Sure - I should only worry when some moron wastes trillions

This from the moron fretting over a fable?
brown eyes

Christiansburg, VA

#137275 Jan 15, 2013
U.S. Gov. I once ran through snake handling church with sheet over head saying boo. It was Ocie's church. I did this for a six pack of beer God forgive me.
GF008 Safer World 2013.
brown eyes

Christiansburg, VA

#137276 Jan 15, 2013
I was a youth approximately 14 years old. GF008 Safer World 2013

“ad maiora nati sumus ”

Since: Sep 09

Justice Scalia is an Oxymoron

#137277 Jan 15, 2013
LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Thankfully, our founders were smart enough to see this and NOT follow England's tradition of 'anyone born on our soil is a citizen'. The founders were preventing takeover from within. That's what it is about whether you want to accept it or not.
Jus Soli doctrine that citizenship follows place of birth has been the guiding principle of United States citizenship laws since the founding of this nation.

Justice Thompson in his majority opinion in Inglis v. Sailor's Snug Harbour, 28 U.S. 99 (1830), stated: "It is universally admitted, both in the English courts and IN THOSE OUF OUR OWN COUNTRY, that ALL PERSONS born within the colonies of North America, whilst subject to the crown of Great Britain, were NATURAL BORN BRITISH SUBJECTS and it must necessarily follow, that the character was changed by the separation of the colonies from the parent state, and the acknowledgement of their independence." Id at 120-121 (emphasis added)

Justice Curtis in his dissenting opinion the Dred Scott case noted:[W]e find that the Constitution has recognised the general principle of public law that allegiance and citizenship depend on the place of birth.” Scott v. Standford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)(Curtis, J, dissenting)

Likewise, Justice Story in Levy v. McCartee 31 U.S. 102 (1832), observed the Jus Soli doctrine as enunciated by Lord Chief Justice Coke: "[I]f an alien cometh into England and hath issue two sons, these two sons are indigenæ, subjects born, because they are born within the realm. Id at 113. See Inglis v. Trustees of Sailor’s Snug Harbor, 28 U. S. 99, 164(1830)(Story, J., concurring )(" Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children even of aliens born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto are SUBJECTS BY BIRTH.")

Furthermore, Justice Taft writing for the court in Weedin v. Chin Bow, 274 US 657 (1927)observed:

"The very learned and useful opinion of Mr. Justice Gray, speaking for the Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, establishes that, at common law in England and the United States, the rule with respect to nationality was that of the JUS SOLI," Id at 660 (emphasis added)

Moreover, "United States nationality depends primarily upon the place of birth, the common law principle of jus soli having been embodied in the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. Cabebe v. Acheson, 183 F. 2d 795, 797 (9th Cir. 1950)

Finally, "[a]t common law and under the early judicial determinations in the United States it was established that birth in a country conferred citizenship. In re Reid, 6 F. Supp. 800, 802 (D. Or. 1934)

Please explain how the courts including the Supreme Court for almost 180 years had been in error regarding our citizenship laws.
brown eyes

Christiansburg, VA

#137278 Jan 15, 2013
They were handling rattlesnakes in church and drinking stricknine U. S. Gov. in church I was in danger worse than members. GF008 Safer World 2013.
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#137279 Jan 15, 2013
Jacques Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
Still toop many mentally-ill to hospitalize or placed in home, LRS, it would break the bank. Not just in the USA, but in most countries. I know we can't do it here, and with today's fast-paced society, trying to keep up, more and more are joining the ranks of the mentally-ill. Who are the dangerous ones? Most unfortunately, and look at the list of killers, and except for the odd one, no one knew.
But sometimes. Look at the Newtown killer. He was mentally ill. Yet his mom accompanied him to the shooting range and obviously must have been negligent with her gun storage. We also have to shoulder the responsibility as parents and guardians.
You can't label an entire group of people as mentally ill. The vast majority of mentally ill persons are not violent. I disagree with you on the "no one knew" part. Details about Loughner and Holmes began to emerge shortly after the shootings. One was seeing a psychiatrist, forget which one now. Details that did emerge didn't paint these guys in a favorable light. Guns aren't going anywhere so when do we begin to study the "why" instead of the "how"?

Since: Oct 09

Moreno Valley, CA

#137280 Jan 15, 2013
ThePatriot wrote:
<quoted text>
So what is the source of Obummers claim he was born at the hospital listed on his fishy BC? It's not the actual hospital, they will not confirm it, and apparently Obummer won't give them permission to confirm something he already made public! Hmm, and you think that makes perfect obot SHEEPLE sense? So what's new, it's the Obummer way, ignore, hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil!
Ever here of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) Privacy and Security Rules
http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/

Or maybe you can check page 6 of the hospital magazine straight from your very own WND files
http://www.wnd.com/files/InspireMagazineSprin...

Fact is what you think don’t amount to a hill of cat doo doo. You have seen Obama’s official BC which has been certified and verified. That you think it’s “fishy” has more to do with you and your inability to either understand plain English or your failure to comprehend the words officially certified and verified. Try going to court with what you think against officially certified and verified and see how far it gets you.

Oh that’s right, you have.
brown eyes

Christiansburg, VA

#137281 Jan 15, 2013
I seek safer Laisons look at jim Jones massacre some churches are extremists made children and adults drink poison laced Kool Aid or get shot survivors escaped into jungle in Johannesburg Africa if my memory serves me correctly.
GF008 Safer World 2013.
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#137282 Jan 15, 2013
Jacques Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
Can I not dream?
Sure you can, if you so choose.

“ad maiora nati sumus ”

Since: Sep 09

Justice Scalia is an Oxymoron

#137283 Jan 15, 2013
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>no everything in your Stupidville is assbackwards, aliens have never been subject to the jurisdiction, thereof. If they were, they would be called citizens, just as stated in the 14th Citizenship Clause.
Citizenship and jurisdiction are two different concepts.

Citizenship describes the political status of a person. Jurisdiction describes the power of the state over a person regardless as to the political status of the person while he or she is residing in the state's jurisdictional boundary.

In other words, a person's citizenship or lack of citizenship is irrelevant in determing whether or not a state has jurisdiction over the person. What is relevant is whether or not that person is within the state's physical boundary in order for the state to have jurisdiction over the person.

Courts have held that a nation doesn't have jurisdiction over its citizens in a foreign state. "[T]he legal status of foreign nationals in the United States is determined solely by our domestic law — foreign law confers no privilege in this country that our courts are bound to recognize. Vanity Fair Mills v. T. Eaton Co., 234 F. 2d 633, 638-639 (2nd Cir. 1956).

Moreover, "The laws of no nation can justly extend beyond its own territories, except so far as regards its own citizens. They can have no force to control the sovereignty or rights of any other nation, within its own jurisdiction." THE APOLLON., 22 US 362, 370 (1824).

As such, "`no sovereignty can extend its process beyond its own territorial limits, to subject other persons or property to its judicial decisions. Every exertion of authority beyond these limits is a mere nullity, and incapable of binding such persons or property in other tribunals;'" Grover & Baker Sewing Machine Co. v. Radcliffe, 137 U.S. 287,296 (1890)

In other words, no FOREIGN NATION can exercise its jurisdictional authority of its subjects or citizens beyond the limits of its territory including ITS subjects or citizens residing in the United States.


Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#137284 Jan 15, 2013
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
The First Congress of the United States knew who the Constitution was written for, Dufus, and they understood that aliens in the US were under the jurisdiction of the United States.
So did subsequent congresses and the courts.
Playing with yourself is not a very productive endeavor.
Grow up!
Shutup dumbass, before I make you look stupid again!!! LMAO!!
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#137285 Jan 15, 2013
Learn to Read wrote:
<quoted text>
Blather blather lie spam blather.
You forgot to click your slippers
LMAO!!! Now pull your head out of your ass and breathe the air of truth!!
brown eyes

Christiansburg, VA

#137286 Jan 15, 2013
I use to walk 12 miles to Hunt's resturaunt as juvenile to play pinball Black Maggie tried to take to railroad tracks to get virginity I was only 10 I escaped from her unharmed after she scratched head with red fingernails. She later married Black Head and threatened to shoot me for throwing rocks on top of house to flirt with her at age 12. Bobby Clawhammer told me to do this. GF008 Safer World 2013.
Jacques Ottawa

Brampton, Canada

#137287 Jan 15, 2013
LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
You can't label an entire group of people as mentally ill. The vast majority of mentally ill persons are not violent. I disagree with you on the "no one knew" part. Details about Loughner and Holmes began to emerge shortly after the shootings. One was seeing a psychiatrist, forget which one now. Details that did emerge didn't paint these guys in a favorable light. Guns aren't going anywhere so when do we begin to study the "why" instead of the "how"?
Hoqw do you account for the highly unfavourable comparison of US gun deaths with countries worldwide that have some form of gun control? As far as I know, not many countries ban firearms, but they do regulate them as cars, trucks, stores, companies.

But one thing I would be adamant about are assault weapons and 10+ magazines. For what earthly reaons would one want to own an assault weapon and 5-round magazines?(which did not exist when the 2nd amendment was written and so threrefore are not protected under said amendment).

Also, we all know why the 2nd amendment was enacted. Times were unsure just after the war of independence, the Brits could make a come-back anytime, specially from Canada where they ruled and there were elements within that the govt was still unsure about. But times have changed. This is not 1785. No amount of gun ownership will deter a real invasion from an enemy. Not today. Red Dawn was fun as a film, but unreal of course.
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#137288 Jan 15, 2013
Hmmm, just took a citizenship eligibility quiz here:

http://www.us-immigration.com/index.html...

My answers were No, Yes, No. Try it.
Jacques Ottawa

Brampton, Canada

#137289 Jan 15, 2013
LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
You can't label an entire group of people as mentally ill. The vast majority of mentally ill persons are not violent. I disagree with you on the "no one knew" part. Details about Loughner and Holmes began to emerge shortly after the shootings. One was seeing a psychiatrist, forget which one now. Details that did emerge didn't paint these guys in a favorable light. Guns aren't going anywhere so when do we begin to study the "why" instead of the "how"?
And I don't want to label a group of people as mentally-ill, but fact is, it's been established that 15% of us have a someform of mental illness. We're not all killers I hope but if some of us are seen by a psy, we would be registered and those dossiers could be verified when we apply for a gun permit.

You said that some of those killers had antecedants. I don't doubt your word on that. In that case, had they been on a register of mentally-ill people and, psychotic to boot, they would've been prevented from buying a gun. The Newtown killer, well, that is different, but his mother shares a lot of the responsibility. Would you have your son handle guns if he had a mental illness, any kind of menntal illness, violent or not?
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#137290 Jan 15, 2013
Atticus Tiberius Finch wrote:
<quoted text>
Citizenship and jurisdiction are two different concepts.
Citizenship describes the political status of a person. Jurisdiction describes the power of the state over a person regardless as to the political status of the person while he or she is residing in the state's jurisdictional boundary.
In other words, a person's citizenship or lack of citizenship is irrelevant in determing whether or not a state has jurisdiction over the person. What is relevant is whether or not that person is within the state's physical boundary in order for the state to have jurisdiction over the person.
Courts have held that a nation doesn't have jurisdiction over its citizens in a foreign state. "[T]he legal status of foreign nationals in the United States is determined solely by our domestic law — foreign law confers no privilege in this country that our courts are bound to recognize. Vanity Fair Mills v. T. Eaton Co., 234 F. 2d 633, 638-639 (2nd Cir. 1956).
Moreover, "The laws of no nation can justly extend beyond its own territories, except so far as regards its own citizens. They can have no force to control the sovereignty or rights of any other nation, within its own jurisdiction." THE APOLLON., 22 US 362, 370 (1824).
As such, "`no sovereignty can extend its process beyond its own territorial limits, to subject other persons or property to its judicial decisions. Every exertion of authority beyond these limits is a mere nullity, and incapable of binding such persons or property in other tribunals;'" Grover & Baker Sewing Machine Co. v. Radcliffe, 137 U.S. 287,296 (1890)
In other words, no FOREIGN NATION can exercise its jurisdictional authority of its subjects or citizens beyond the limits of its territory including ITS subjects or citizens residing in the United States.
"and subject to the jurisdiction, thereof", simply means the US Constitution and no alien has ever been subject to that.

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) 1 min Guest 1,481,760
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 20 min Into The Night 62,958
last post wins! (Dec '10) 46 min Concerned_American 2,902
last post wins! (Apr '13) 52 min Concerned_American 2,169
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 1 hr CrunchyBacon 104,729
Trumps first words 1 hr Joey 1
FUGITIVE - ROMEL ESMAIL WANTED!!!!! Bring him i... (May '16) 1 hr Bella Esmail Moore 5

Chicago Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages