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
Learn to Read

Indianapolis, IN

#151637 Apr 18, 2013
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!! The US Constitution has jurisdiction over your country and it has said, "all persons born in the US and not subject to a foreign power are subject to the jurisdiction of the US Constitution", a citizen.
Guess that leaves Obama an alien, one that has never been naturalized.
Dufus Dale's play law may allow Korea to declare anyone born in Kansas to be a Korean citizen and this deprive them of Us Citizenship. Fortunately, the US Constitution and our sovereignty supersede play law.

(Note - Dale calls this obvious fallacy with play law "low hanging fruit" .... Reminds me of Birfoons arguing against sanctions because their claims were so obviously frivolous that any three year old should be able to defeat them)
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#151638 Apr 18, 2013
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
ALL persons born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats are born subject to the jurisdiction of the USA. Hence they are US citizens and Natural Born US citizens at birth. A child born on US soil does not have to be naturalized, she or he is a Natural Born Citizen.
The Constitution says no such thing, "are born subject to the jurisdiction of the USA", it plainly states "and subject to the jurisdiction, thereof", meaning the US Constitution, of course we all know aliens have never been subject to the jurisdiction, thereof. If that were not true we wouldn't need a naturalization process, would we.
Yes, all children born on US soil are citizens, if they are subject to the jurisdiction of the Constitution, meaning not subject to any foreign power.
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#151639 Apr 18, 2013
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
They don't ? Yet, they are the reference. Canada across the ocean from N.America, Canada in France, LMAO (LRS tm reg'd).
How it must suck to have failed elementary geography.
Teacher : "Little LRS (ugh, poor momma), where is Canada located?"
LRS : "Easy, teacher, it's across the ocean right smack in the middle of France".(Class roars with laughter, guffaws);
Teacher : "Sigh. Off to your corner, yes, that's it, pick up your dunce cap on the way, little slug , er LRS, and sit in that corner".
bla bla bla yada yada yada! No ammo, huh? LMAO! Oslama didn't get his gun control bill passed and now he's bytchin' like you jakeleg! LMAO!!! You're his brother, aren't you?
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

#151640 Apr 18, 2013
LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Simply put, you're FOS! You'd be laughed out of a Jr. High political science class! Then you could join jakeleg as just another dropout. dumb dumb dumb
BTW, are you here illegally?
No, you are wrong.

Senator Hatch is right, and you are wrong:

“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).

Edwin Meese, Ronald Reagan's attorney general, is right, and you are wrong:

“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.]

The Wall Street Journal is right, and you are wrong:

"Some birthers imagine that there is a difference between being a “citizen by birth” or a “native citizen” on the one hand and a “natural born” citizen on the other.“Eccentric” is too kind a word for this notion, which is either daft or dishonest. All three terms are identical in meaning." ( http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405297... )

The Economist Magazine is right, and you are wrong:

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

And former Senator Fred Thompson is right, and you are wrong:

http://www.fredthompsonsamerica.com/2012/07/3...

For those who would like to do their own research on the subject, here are some more links:

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

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

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

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

http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/...
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

#151641 Apr 18, 2013
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>The Constitution says no such thing, "are born subject to the jurisdiction of the USA", it plainly states "and subject to the jurisdiction, thereof", meaning the US Constitution, of course we all know aliens have never been subject to the jurisdiction, thereof. If that were not true we wouldn't need a naturalization process, would we.
Yes, all children born on US soil are citizens, if they are subject to the jurisdiction of the Constitution, meaning not subject to any foreign power.
Aliens in the USA are subject to the jurisdiction of US law, and that is what it means. Only foreign diplomats are not subject to the jurisdiction of US law and hence their children cannot become citizens at birth.
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#151642 Apr 18, 2013
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you are wrong.
This court ruling is right, and you are wrong:
Mustata v. US Dept. of Justice, 179 F.3d 1017 (6th Cir. 1999)(children born in US to two Romanian citizens described as “natural born citizens” of the US):
“Petitioners Marian and Lenuta Mustata are citizens of Romania. At the time of their petition, they resided in Michigan with their two minor children, who are natural born citizens of the United States.”
And this court ruling is right, and you are wrong:
Diaz-Salazar v. INS, 700 F.2d 1156 (7th Cir. 1983)(child born in US to Mexican citizen is “natural born citizen” of US):
“Petitioner, Sebastian Diaz-Salazar, entered the United States illegally [from Mexico] in 1974 and has been living and working in Chicago since that time.*** The relevant facts which have been placed before the INS, BIA, and this court can be summarized as follows: The petitioner has a wife and two children under the age of three in Chicago; the children are natural-born citizens of the United States.”
And ditto for this ruling:
Nwankpa v. Kissinger, 376 F. Supp. 122 (M.D. Ala. 1974)(child born in US to two Biafra citizens described as “natural born citizen” of the US):
“The Plaintiff was a native of Biafra, now a part of the Republic of Nigeria. His wife and two older children are also natives of that country, but his third child, a daughter, is a natural-born citizen of the United States.”
And the same for this:
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.”
And ditto for this:
Tisdale v. Obama (Virginia federal court 2012) ruling :“It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens.”
And this:
Hollander v. McCain (New Hampshire 2008) ruling:“Those born “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” U.S. Const., amend. XIV, have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since the time of the founding, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 674-75 (1898), and thus eligible for the presidency..."
And here are the words of the US Supreme Court in the Wong Kim Ark case:
"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."
They all are right, and you are wrong.
The kids are natural born citizens yet were not born to U.S. citizens? LMAO! You really don't understand why the law was put in place to begin with. Return to Neverland. dumb dumb dumb
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#151643 Apr 18, 2013
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
The courts, and in particular the US Supreme Court, are the final authorities on the LAW. You are not an authority at all.
Re: "McCain wasn't even born in the US."
Are you saying that a US Naval base is not US soil????
No, the US Constitution is the final authority, didn't you know the Constitution has complete jurisdiction over all three branches of government.
That is right McCain wasn't born within the limits of the USA. Now how did he get his citizenship?
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

#151644 Apr 18, 2013
LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
The kids are natural born citizens yet were not born to U.S. citizens? LMAO! You really don't understand why the law was put in place to begin with. Return to Neverland. dumb dumb dumb
You are simply wrong. Children born on US soil are natural born citizens regardless of the citizenship of their parents.

That is because the meaning of Natural Born comes from the common law (not from Vattel, whose word "indignes" was not even translated as "Natural Born Citizen" until TEN years after the US Constitution was written, and who is not even mentioned once in the Federalist Papers---while the common law was mentioned about twenty times).

This court ruling is right, and you are wrong:

Mustata v. US Dept. of Justice, 179 F.3d 1017 (6th Cir. 1999)(children born in US to two Romanian citizens described as “natural born citizens” of the US):

“Petitioners Marian and Lenuta Mustata are citizens of Romania. At the time of their petition, they resided in Michigan with their two minor children, who are natural born citizens of the United States.”

And this court ruling is right, and you are wrong:

Diaz-Salazar v. INS, 700 F.2d 1156 (7th Cir. 1983)(child born in US to Mexican citizen is “natural born citizen” of US):

“Petitioner, Sebastian Diaz-Salazar, entered the United States illegally [from Mexico] in 1974 and has been living and working in Chicago since that time.*** The relevant facts which have been placed before the INS, BIA, and this court can be summarized as follows: The petitioner has a wife and two children under the age of three in Chicago; the children are natural-born citizens of the United States.”

And ditto for this ruling:

Nwankpa v. Kissinger, 376 F. Supp. 122 (M.D. Ala. 1974)(child born in US to two Biafra citizens described as “natural born citizen” of the US):

“The Plaintiff was a native of Biafra, now a part of the Republic of Nigeria. His wife and two older children are also natives of that country, but his third child, a daughter, is a natural-born citizen of the United States.”

And the same for this:

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.”

And ditto for this:

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

And this:

Hollander v. McCain (New Hampshire 2008) ruling:“Those born “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” U.S. Const., amend. XIV, have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since the time of the founding, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 674-75 (1898), and thus eligible for the presidency..."

And here are the words of the US Supreme Court in the Wong Kim Ark case:

"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."

They are all right, and you are completely wrong.
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#151645 Apr 18, 2013
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No, he was born both a citizen of his father's country AND a citizen of the USA. This is what is known as "dual citizenship." As far as US citizenship is concerned, dual citizenship has no effect on US citizenship whatever. If you are born on US soil and are not the child of foreign diplomats, you are a Natural Born US Citizen regardless of the citizenship of your father, or for that matter, the citizenship of both of your parents. Their citizenship has no effect on US nationality whatever.
The US Government can't strip a citizenship of another nation, unless requested by that individual through the naturalization process and the Constitution has never recognized a dual-citizenship.
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#151646 Apr 18, 2013
A great new comedy is about to come on. It's called Eric Holder!
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#151647 Apr 18, 2013
Learn to Read wrote:
<quoted text>
Dufus Dale's play law may allow Korea to declare anyone born in Kansas to be a Korean citizen and this deprive them of Us Citizenship. Fortunately, the US Constitution and our sovereignty supersede play law.
(Note - Dale calls this obvious fallacy with play law "low hanging fruit" .... Reminds me of Birfoons arguing against sanctions because their claims were so obviously frivolous that any three year old should be able to defeat them)
Nothing of substance!
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

#151648 Apr 18, 2013
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>No, the US Constitution is the final authority, didn't you know the Constitution has complete jurisdiction over all three branches of government.
That is right McCain wasn't born within the limits of the USA. Now how did he get his citizenship?
The constitution has final authority, and it does not say "two citizen parents." It does not even say "one citizen parent." Nor did any of the writers of Article II of the US Constitution ever say that the US-born children of foreigners were not just as the US-born children of US citizens.

Re McCain. He was born in the family hospital on a US Naval Base----are you claiming that that is not US soil?
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

#151650 Apr 18, 2013
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>The US Government can't strip a citizenship of another nation, unless requested by that individual through the naturalization process and the Constitution has never recognized a dual-citizenship.
The US Constitution has never recognized dual citizenship. That means that foreign citizenship has no effect on US law AT ALL. This does not strip someone of their foreign citizenship. It just means that people who are dual citizens are just as much US citizens as people who are only US citizens.
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#151651 Apr 18, 2013
LRS wrote:
A great new comedy is about to come on. It's called Eric Holder!
To be immediately followed by a smash new hit called Smellen'!
Learn to Read

Indianapolis, IN

#151652 Apr 18, 2013
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>Nothing of substance!
Duck and cover Dufus

Way to abandon your fable
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#151653 Apr 18, 2013
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Aliens in the USA are subject to the jurisdiction of US law, and that is what it means. Only foreign diplomats are not subject to the jurisdiction of US law and hence their children cannot become citizens at birth.
No, only the US Constitution can make citizens.(14th amendment)
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

#151655 Apr 18, 2013
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
The constitution has final authority, and it does not say "two citizen parents." It does not even say "one citizen parent." Nor did any of the writers of Article II of the US Constitution ever say that the US-born children of foreigners were not just as the US-born children of US citizens.
Re McCain. He was born in the family hospital on a US Naval Base----are you claiming that that is not US soil?
That should read: Nor did any of the writers of Article II of the US Constitution ever say that the US-born children of foreigners were not as eligible to be president as the US-born children of US citizens. Nor for that matter did they ever say that the US-born children of foreigners should be lower class citizens than the US-born children of US citizens. They never said anything like that at all.
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

#151656 Apr 18, 2013
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>No, only the US Constitution can make citizens.(14th amendment)
The US Constitution does make citizens, and it says in the 14th Amendment that everyone born in the USA and subject to the jurisdiction of the USA is a citizen at birth.

The meaning of jurisdiction means subject to the LAW of the USA, and everyone who is in the USA except for foreign diplomats is subject to the law of the USA. Therefore every child born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats is a US citizen at birth.

This court ruling is right, and you are wrong:

Mustata v. US Dept. of Justice, 179 F.3d 1017 (6th Cir. 1999)(children born in US to two Romanian citizens described as “natural born citizens” of the US):

“Petitioners Marian and Lenuta Mustata are citizens of Romania. At the time of their petition, they resided in Michigan with their two minor children, who are natural born citizens of the United States.”

And this court ruling is right, and you are wrong:

Diaz-Salazar v. INS, 700 F.2d 1156 (7th Cir. 1983)(child born in US to Mexican citizen is “natural born citizen” of US):

“Petitioner, Sebastian Diaz-Salazar, entered the United States illegally [from Mexico] in 1974 and has been living and working in Chicago since that time.*** The relevant facts which have been placed before the INS, BIA, and this court can be summarized as follows: The petitioner has a wife and two children under the age of three in Chicago; the children are natural-born citizens of the United States.”

And ditto for this ruling:

Nwankpa v. Kissinger, 376 F. Supp. 122 (M.D. Ala. 1974)(child born in US to two Biafra citizens described as “natural born citizen” of the US):

“The Plaintiff was a native of Biafra, now a part of the Republic of Nigeria. His wife and two older children are also natives of that country, but his third child, a daughter, is a natural-born citizen of the United States.”

And the same for this:

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.”

And ditto for this:

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

And this:

Hollander v. McCain (New Hampshire 2008) ruling:“Those born “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” U.S. Const., amend. XIV, have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since the time of the founding, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 674-75 (1898), and thus eligible for the presidency..."

And here are the words of the US Supreme Court in the Wong Kim Ark case:

"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."

They are right, and you are wrong.
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#151657 Apr 18, 2013
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
The US Constitution has never recognized dual citizenship. That means that foreign citizenship has no effect on US law AT ALL. This does not strip someone of their foreign citizenship. It just means that people who are dual citizens are just as much US citizens as people who are only US citizens.
"Nor can it be doubted that it is the inherent right of every independent nation to determine for itself, and according to its own constitution and laws, what classes of persons shall be entitled to its citizenship."
Looks like foreign citizenship does have an effect on US law. The US Government can not strip a citizenship from anyone unless requested by that person.
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#151658 Apr 18, 2013
Learn to Read wrote:
<quoted text>
Duck and cover Dufus
Way to abandon your fable
There, I gave you the last word!!! Are you happy now?
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
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 10 min IBdaMann 49,183
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 17 min shinningelectr0n 1,153,936
Music Artists A to Z (Feb '14) 1 hr Roxie Darling 361
Last word + 2 (Mar '12) 1 hr Roxie Darling 718
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 1 hr cheluzal 98,851
Obama pardons 2 Illinoisans, including former M... 4 hr barefoot2626 16
anybody know Glen Musielak? Glentech? (Mar '13) 4 hr Cracker Jack 40
Chicago Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

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 ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 11:17 am PST

NBC Sports11:17AM
T.Y. Hilton is questionable, but they're not ruling him out
Bleacher Report11:28 AM
Jay Cutler Rumors: Latest Details, Speculation on Bears QB's Future
Bleacher Report11:39 AM
Complete Week 16 Preview for Indianapolis
NBC Sports12:33 PM
1 thing even Rahm can't fix: Da Bears - NBC Sports
NBC Sports 1:01 PM
Cowboys' Murray listed as questionable for Colts - NBC Sports