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

Full story: Chicago Tribune

The U.S. Supreme Court will consider Friday whether to take up a lawsuit challenging President-elect Barack Obama 's U.S. citizenship, a continuation of a New Jersey case embraced by some opponents of Obama's ...

Comments (Page 6,672)

Showing posts 133,421 - 133,440 of167,754
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#151671
Apr 18, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

2

Now, just because someone says he is something, does not mean he is. An example is Mayor Michael Bloomberg who was a Democrat, ran as a Republican for mayor, and then switched to Independent.
But whatever party he claims to be apart of, he is a blooming idiot!
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#151672
Apr 18, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

1

Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>Wrong!!! Ever hear the word "Unconstitutional"?
None of those rulings were unconstitutional. What IS unconstitutional is your crazy theory.

On October 1 of last year, the current US Supreme Court turned down a birther appeal of one of ten rulings, the Farrar case in Georgia, which held that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen comes from the common law and refers to the place of birth and that EVERY child born in the USA is a Natural Born Citizen. By turning down the appeal of that ruling, the current US Supreme Court allowed the ruling of the lower court---and the nine other courts, all of which held that EVERY child born in the USA is a Natural Born Citizen---to stand. They are not unconstitutional.

You are simply wrong.
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#151673
Apr 18, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Answer: Bingham ALSO said this:
Bingham also said:
“Who does not know that every person born within the limits of the Republic is, in the language of the Constitution, a natural-born citizen.” Rep. Bingham, The congressional globe, Volume 61, Part 2. pg. 2212 (1869)”
It seems that by 1869 he had changed his mind from what he said in 1866.
More importantly, Bingham was NOT the author of the 14th Amendment. He was the author it the EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE of the 14th Amendment. He was not the author if the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment.
Who was the author of the citizenship clause? Senator Lyman Trumball.
And here is what Lyman Trumball said:
“By the terms of the Constitution he must have been a citizen of the United States for nine years before he could take a seat here, and seven years before he could take a seat in the other House ; and, in order to be President of the United States, a person must be a native-born citizen. It is the common law of this country, and of all countries, and it was unnecessary to incorporate it in the Constitution, that a person is a citizen of the country in which he is born…. I read from Paschal’s Annotated Constitution, note 274:‘All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together.’ Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country as well as of England. There are two exceptions, and only two, to the universality of its application. The children of ambassadors are, in theory, born in the allegiance of the powers the ambassadors represent, and slaves, in legal contemplation, are property, and not persons.”—Sen. Trumbull, Cong. Globe. 1st Session, 42nd Congress, pt. 1, pg. 575 (1872)
More importantly, even if Bingham had believed what he said in the first quotation, there are hundreds of members of congress, and the opinion of one or two of them does not count. What counts is the decision by the US Supreme Court, which ruled that EVERY CHILD born in the USA is a Natural Born US Citizen.
And on October 1 of last year, the current US Supreme Court turned down a birther appeal of one of ten rulings, the Farrar case in Georgia, which held that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen comes from the common law and refers to the place of birth and that EVERY child born in the USA is a Natural Born Citizen. By turning down the appeal of that ruling, the current US Supreme Court allowed the ruling of the lower court---and the nine other courts, all of which held that EVERY child born in the USA is a Natural Born Citizen---to stand.
You are simply wrong.
That is right by 1869 the 14th was law and every person born in the US and not subject to a foreign power were Natural Born Citizens.
In 1868 the Constitution made citizens, not the English Common Law, you will not find one mention of English common law in Howards framing of the 14th Citizenship Clause, that is what counts.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#151675
Apr 18, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Damn that G.W. Bush by taking care of his Saudi friends again. I am sure he will use the same SR-71 his dad used back in 1980 to spirit him out of the country were Obama won't be able to get him!!!

U.S.‘deporting Saudi person of interest’
Posted on April 18, 2013

What? How does this happen? This is not good. We can’t seem to deport anyone, yet a person of interest gets a pass?
Check it out:

An expert on terrorism says the Saudi national who was the original “person of interest” in connection with Monday’s Boston Marathon bombing is going to be deported from the U.S. next week.

The foreign student from Revere, Mass., is identified as 20-year-old Abdul Rahman Ali Alharbi.

“I just learned from my own sources that he is now going to be deported on national security grounds next Tuesday, which is very unusual,” Steve Emerson of the Investigative Project on Terrorism told Sean Hannity of Fox News Wednesday night.

The Reuters news agency reported President Barack Obama met with Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal on Wednesday, noting “the meeting was not on Obama’s public schedule.”

After that meeting was mentioned, Emerson told Hannity,“That’s very interesting because this is the way things are done with Saudi Arabia. You don’t arrest their citizens. You deport them, because they don’t want them to be embarrassed and that’s the way we appease them.”

Read more: http://conservativebyte.com/2013/04/u-s-depor...
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#151676
Apr 18, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Ellen1 wrote:
Re: "The above is beyond argument an contestation. Justice ha ha Dale pits himself against the entire complete US constitution and judiciary. "
It is actually worse than that. He pits himself against this statement of principle by our founders: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal."
IF the writers of the US Constitution had meant the US-born children of foreigners to not be equal, or not to be US citizens at birth, or to be a lower category of citizens who are not eligible to become president------they would have told us. And, of course, they didn't.
They sure did tell us, to be "and subject to the jurisdiction, thereof", the US Constitution, one can not be subject to a foreign power.
To be a dual-citizen one must be subject to two foreign powers, self explanatory.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#151677
Apr 18, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

The Bridge

A man on his Harley was riding along a California beach when suddenly the sky clouded above his head and, in a booming voice, God said,
'because you have tried to be faithful to me in all ways, I will grant you one wish.'

The biker pulled over and said,
'Build a bridge to Hawaii so I can ride over anytime I want.'

God replied,'Your request is materialistic; think of the enormous challenges for that kind of undertaking;
the supports required reaching the bottom of the Pacific and the concrete and steel it would take!
I can do it, but it is hard for me to justify your desire for worldly things.
Take a little more time and think of something that could possibly help mankind.'

The biker thought about it for a long time. Finally, he said,
'God, I wish that I , and all men, could understand women;
I want to know how she feels inside, what she's thinking when she gives me the silent treatment,
why she cries, what she means when she says nothing's wrong,
why she snaps and complains when I try to help, and how I can make a woman truly happy.

God replied: "You want two lanes or four on that bridge?"
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#151678
Apr 18, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>That is right by 1869 the 14th was law and every person born in the US and not subject to a foreign power were Natural Born Citizens.
In 1868 the Constitution made citizens, not the English Common Law, you will not find one mention of English common law in Howards framing of the 14th Citizenship Clause, that is what counts.
Howard was just one of the members of the US Congress, so was Senator Trumbull, and I have quoted his views above. The final decision on what the term mean was made by the US Supreme Court in the Wong Kim Ark case, and it ruled that EVERY CHILD born in the USA is a Natural Born Citizen. And that is that. That is what it means, it does not mean what you think, nor even what Howard thought. It means what the US Supreme Court RULED. And, you know what, the US Supreme Court was right. The term really does come from the common law---as the examples of Americans who wrote at the time of the writing of the US Constitution shows.

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

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

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

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

http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/...

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

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_born_cit...

http://tucsoncitizen.com/arizona-lincoln-repu...

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/natural_born_c...

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

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42097.pdf
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#151679
Apr 18, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>They sure did tell us, to be "and subject to the jurisdiction, thereof", the US Constitution, one can not be subject to a foreign power.
To be a dual-citizen one must be subject to two foreign powers, self explanatory.
No one born in the USA other than the children of foreign diplomats is "subject to the jurisdiction" of a foreign country UNDER US LAW, which is what counts.

Dual citizenship does not affect US citizenship or Natural Born Citizen status.

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 this is right, and you are wrong:

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

You are wrong.
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#151680
Apr 18, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

2

Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
None of those rulings were unconstitutional. What IS unconstitutional is your crazy theory.
On October 1 of last year, the current US Supreme Court turned down a birther appeal of one of ten rulings, the Farrar case in Georgia, which held that the meaning of Natural Born Citizen comes from the common law and refers to the place of birth and that EVERY child born in the USA is a Natural Born Citizen. By turning down the appeal of that ruling, the current US Supreme Court allowed the ruling of the lower court---and the nine other courts, all of which held that EVERY child born in the USA is a Natural Born Citizen---to stand. They are not unconstitutional.
You are simply wrong.
Very Unconstitutional per the 14th amendment.
All children born in this country of alien fathers are ipos facto citizens of their father's country of origin, just a fact you can't change.
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#151681
Apr 18, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
No one born in the USA other than the children of foreign diplomats is "subject to the jurisdiction" of a foreign country UNDER US LAW, which is what counts.
Dual citizenship does not affect US citizenship or Natural Born Citizen status.
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 this is right, and you are wrong:
Tisdale v. Obama (Virginia federal court 2012) ruling:“It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens.”
You are wrong.
Answered that today.

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#151683
Apr 18, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
Ah, just found this from 2011. See Jacques, I can be fair and balanced. Sooo, is he a Republican or is he a Democrat?
Voters select six new officeholders during election January 5, 2011 12:00 am | Updated: 2:51 pm, Wed Sep 26, 2012.
Loyd Cook
In Precinct 1, Eric Williams added another Republican to the slate of county officials, defeating longtime justice of the peace Johnny Perry, a Democrat, in the November general election.
Williams defeated the incumbent Democrat by a 2,274-1,523 final total.
http://www.kaufmanherald.com/news/article_f14...
Who cares? Who cares if a criminal is conservative or democrat for heaven's sake. He or she commits a felone, he or she must pay no matter the party. Same for elected country officials, whichever party appoints them, they must be neutral, like John Roberts proved he could be.

There is a huge public works scandal before the courts in Québec at the present time. The liberal party, my party, is accused and, from the looks of it, rightly accused of corruption in the awarding of public works contracts. Were they conservative and you a Canadian, you'd defend them to the death. Not me. Wrong is wrong, and if found guilty as charged, I hope the bastards pay for it, though probably only small fry will eventually pay. Your cherished 1% can afford fancy lawyers, they get off. Disgusting.
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#151684
Apr 18, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>That is right by 1869 the 14th was law and every person born in the US and not subject to a foreign power were Natural Born Citizens.
In 1868 the Constitution made citizens, not the English Common Law, you will not find one mention of English common law in Howards framing of the 14th Citizenship Clause, that is what counts.
Howard was one of hundreds of members of Congress, and you have seen the views of Senator Lyman Turmbull above, and he does quote the common law (which is mentioned about twenty times in the Federalist Papers while Vattel and the two-parent theory are not mentioned once). More importantly, the final meaning is not determined by looking at the view of one or two members of Congress. It is determined by the US Supreme Court, which ruled that the meaning DOES come from the common law.

And, you know what, the Supreme Court was right, as the quotations from AMERICANS (not Swiss) at the time shows:

"Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it. The first, by their birth-right, became entitled to all the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to none, but such as were held out and given by the laws of the respective states prior to their emigration....St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE'S COMMENTARIES: WITH NOTES OF REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA.(1803)

"Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity."---William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed.(1829)

Your nutty theory is wrong.

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#151685
Apr 18, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
Now, just because someone says he is something, does not mean he is. An example is Mayor Michael Bloomberg who was a Democrat, ran as a Republican for mayor, and then switched to Independent.
But whatever party he claims to be apart of, he is a blooming idiot!
Say what you want about Bloomberg, and idiot he is not. Branding your foes idiot is the fastest way to loserville.
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#151686
Apr 18, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>Very Unconstitutional per the 14th amendment.
All children born in this country of alien fathers are ipos facto citizens of their father's country of origin, just a fact you can't change.
That's right; they are dual citizens. But that does not affect their US citizenship IN ANY WAY. Just a fact you can't change.

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#151687
Apr 18, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
Damn that G.W. Bush by taking care of his Saudi friends again. I am sure he will use the same SR-71 his dad used back in 1980 to spirit him out of the country were Obama won't be able to get him!!!
U.S.‘deporting Saudi person of interest’
Posted on April 18, 2013
What? How does this happen? This is not good. We can’t seem to deport anyone, yet a person of interest gets a pass?
Check it out:
An expert on terrorism says the Saudi national who was the original “person of interest” in connection with Monday’s Boston Marathon bombing is going to be deported from the U.S. next week.
The foreign student from Revere, Mass., is identified as 20-year-old Abdul Rahman Ali Alharbi.
“I just learned from my own sources that he is now going to be deported on national security grounds next Tuesday, which is very unusual,” Steve Emerson of the Investigative Project on Terrorism told Sean Hannity of Fox News Wednesday night.
The Reuters news agency reported President Barack Obama met with Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal on Wednesday, noting “the meeting was not on Obama’s public schedule.”
After that meeting was mentioned, Emerson told Hannity,“That’s very interesting because this is the way things are done with Saudi Arabia. You don’t arrest their citizens. You deport them, because they don’t want them to be embarrassed and that’s the way we appease them.”
Read more: http://conservativebyte.com/2013/04/u-s-depor...
An almost carbon copy of LRS's looney tooney post. And yes, GWB did sneak out hundreds of Saudis in a no-fly US sky. Go figure.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#151688
Apr 18, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Jo, the Libtard from Boca Raton, FL!
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#151689
Apr 18, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>Answered that today.
Your answer was wrong.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#151690
Apr 18, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
Now, just because someone says he is something, does not mean he is. An example is Mayor Michael Bloomberg who was a Democrat, ran as a Republican for mayor, and then switched to Independent.
But whatever party he claims to be apart of, he is a blooming idiot!
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
Say what you want about Bloomberg, and idiot he is not. Branding your foes idiot is the fastest way to loserville.
I take that back because he is smart enough to get you Libtards to give him money!

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#151691
Apr 18, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
Now, just because someone says he is something, does not mean he is. An example is Mayor Michael Bloomberg who was a Democrat, ran as a Republican for mayor, and then switched to Independent.
But whatever party he claims to be apart of, he is a blooming idiot!
Churc hill was a conservative, then a liberal and once more a conservative. So what? Proves the man can think for himself instead of stupidly adhering 100% to the party line. Same for Bloomberg. Maybe, in the end, he could't stand either party.
Learn to Read

Indianapolis, IN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#151692
Apr 18, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>Howard was one of hundreds of members of Congress, and you have seen the views of Senator Lyman Turmbull above, and he does quote the common law (which is mentioned about twenty times in the Federalist Papers while Vattel and the two-parent theory are not mentioned once). More importantly, the final meaning is not determined by looking at the view of one or two members of Congress. It is determined by the US Supreme Court, which ruled that the meaning DOES come from the common law.

And, you know what, the Supreme Court was right, as the quotations from AMERICANS (not Swiss) at the time shows:

"Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it. The first, by their birth-right, became entitled to all the privileges of citizens; the second, were entitled to none, but such as were held out and given by the laws of the respective states prior to their emigration....St. George Tucker, BLACKSTONE'S COMMENTARIES: WITH NOTES OF REFERENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA.(1803)

"Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity."---William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed.(1829)

Your nutty theory is wrong.
Not to mention the fact that all of the States ratifying the Constitution and the Dufus Dale amendment knew without a doubt what "subject to the jurisdiction" meant and none of them shared in the Dufus fable

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 133,421 - 133,440 of167,754
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

42 Users are viewing the Chicago Forum right now

Search the Chicago Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 3 min woodtick57 1,037,727
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 7 min Sublime1 96,404
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 59 min _Zoey_ 4,045
Music Artists A to Z 1 hr _Zoey_ 102
Amy 4-24 1 hr RACE 35
IL Who do you support for Secretary of State in Il... (Oct '10) 1 hr Tea Bagger 511
Amy 4-23 1 hr RACE 43
•••
•••
•••

Chicago Jobs

•••
•••
•••

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••