BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit ...

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

There are 230950 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

#153980 May 2, 2013
Learn to Read wrote:
<quoted text>
Psssst. Hey Romper. You forgot to call me a troll. You're slipping wuss boy
You're the only person I know who gets upset because he WASN'T called a troll! LMAO! You're new aren't you? A bit green? A bit stupid? Yep, yep and yep. MoeRon, sparkle for us! LMAO!!!
Ellen1

Dedham, MA

#153981 May 2, 2013
Re: "Where does it say in United States v. Wong Kim Ark or in the Fourteenth Amendment does it say "natural Born citizen"?"

Here it is again:

"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."

It says that everyone born in England was a "Natural born subject". Then it says that the same rule was practiced in the colonies, and in the early states and UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.

The ruling also quotes this: "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. "

The ruling also quotes this: "Before our Revolution, all free persons born within the dominions of the King of Great Britain, whatever their color or complexion, were native-born British subjects; those born out of his allegiance were aliens.... Upon the Revolution, no other change took place in the law of North Carolina than was consequent upon the transition from a colony dependent on an European King to a free and sovereign [p664] State; ... British subjects in North Carolina became North Carolina freemen; ... and all free persons born within the State are born citizens of the State.... The term "citizen," as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term "subject" in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. "

And so far TEN appeals court rulings on the issue of presidential eligibility have all ruled that the Wong Kim Ark case did indeed rule that every child born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats is a Natural Born Citizen, and not one of them ruled that the Minor v. Happersett decision applied or that two citizen parents are required to be a Natural Born Citizen.

And on October 1, 2012, the US Supreme Court turned down an appeal of one of those ten appeals court rulings, which had said that the Wong Kim Ark case said that every child born in the USA is a Natural Born US Citizen. The result of the US Supreme Court decision to turn down the appeal, is that the ruling of that appeals court, and the other nine appeals courts, STAND.
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#153982 May 2, 2013
Hey Flappers, guess y'all are pretty bumbed that your bomb making buddies got caught, huh? I'm sure they're related to one of you! What a sad bunch of losers. LMAO squidiots

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#153983 May 2, 2013
Yep, I agree, this is very racist. But the producer is BLACK so Pepsico aired it! What were they thinking?
http://stereogum.com/1338781/pepsi-pulls-tyle...
If a white guy had produced this video, he would have been lynched.
Grand Birther

Oregon, OH

#153984 May 2, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>

Where does it say in United States v. Wong Kim Ark or in the Fourteenth Amendment does it say "natural Born citizen"?
Again, all it says is "citizen". Wong Kim Ark was a "native born citizen" as he was born on U.S. soil. But John McCain is a "natural born citizen" as both of his parents were U.S. citizens. My younger sister, who was born in Munich Germany in 1956 is also a "natural born citizen", again, because both of her parents were also U.S. citizens. And she has a DS-1350 to prove it. John McCain does not have a DS-1350 because the Panama "Canal Zone" was a U.S. territory at the time of his birth.
Certification of Report of Birth (DS-1350)
http://www.travel.state.gov/passport/faq/faq_...
L O L, Rogue Dumbarse has never read the WKA decision because it's too long for his infantile attention span.

The 14th Amendment does not need to have those exact words in it, Rogue Dumbarse. The whole point is to make citizens out of all the people, slaves included, born in this country. The only distinction is between natural born and naturalized.

If you had a brain, you would know that there is a difference between "necessary" and "sufficient." It is sufficient to be born in the US to be a natural born citizen.

It is sufficient to have two citizen parents to be a natural born citizen if born outside the country. Is it necessary? No court has ever ruled on that.

Please do not weigh in on matters you do not understand.

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#153985 May 2, 2013
LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
You're the only person I know who gets upset because he WASN'T called a troll! LMAO! You're new aren't you? A bit green? A bit stupid? Yep, yep and yep. MoeRon, sparkle for us! LMAO!!!
Er, slug, "troll" may seem like a compliment when you are so addressed, but for most sane people, it's pejorative. And when I call you slithering slug, it's not meant as a compliment. Hope that clears it up for you.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#153986 May 2, 2013
Ellen1 wrote:
Re: "Where does it say in United States v. Wong Kim Ark or in the Fourteenth Amendment does it say "natural Born citizen"?"
Here it is again:
"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."
It says that everyone born in England was a "Natural born subject". Then it says that the same rule was practiced in the colonies, and in the early states and UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.
The ruling also quotes this: "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. "
The ruling also quotes this: "Before our Revolution, all free persons born within the dominions of the King of Great Britain, whatever their color or complexion, were native-born British subjects; those born out of his allegiance were aliens.... Upon the Revolution, no other change took place in the law of North Carolina than was consequent upon the transition from a colony dependent on an European King to a free and sovereign [p664] State; ... British subjects in North Carolina became North Carolina freemen; ... and all free persons born within the State are born citizens of the State.... The term "citizen," as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term "subject" in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. "
And so far TEN appeals court rulings on the issue of presidential eligibility have all ruled that the Wong Kim Ark case did indeed rule that every child born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats is a Natural Born Citizen, and not one of them ruled that the Minor v. Happersett decision applied or that two citizen parents are required to be a Natural Born Citizen.
And on October 1, 2012, the US Supreme Court turned down an appeal of one of those ten appeals court rulings, which had said that the Wong Kim Ark case said that every child born in the USA is a Natural Born US Citizen. The result of the US Supreme Court decision to turn down the appeal, is that the ruling of that appeals court, and the other nine appeals courts, STAND.
Hey stupid, that is NOT the findings of United States v. Wong Kim Ark. Show us in the ORIGINAL findings of United States v. Wong Kim Ark and no other interpretations of it.
But the fact is a no place in United States v. Wong Kim Ark does it mention "natural born citizen" and neither is it mentioned in the Fourteen Amendment!
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#153987 May 2, 2013
Grand Birther wrote:
<quoted text>
L O L, Rogue Dumbarse has never read the WKA decision because it's too long for his infantile attention span.
The 14th Amendment does not need to have those exact words in it, Rogue Dumbarse. The whole point is to make citizens out of all the people, slaves included, born in this country. The only distinction is between natural born and naturalized.
If you had a brain, you would know that there is a difference between "necessary" and "sufficient." It is sufficient to be born in the US to be a natural born citizen.
It is sufficient to have two citizen parents to be a natural born citizen if born outside the country. Is it necessary? No court has ever ruled on that.
Please do not weigh in on matters you do not understand.
Barfer Girks, are you really this stupid? If you're going to make a play on words then I'll give you another, Native Born Citizen. Tell us Barfer, what is the difference between the two, native/natural? Please do not open your mouth anymore as only turds fall out! squidiot

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#153988 May 2, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
Yep, I agree, this is very racist. But the producer is BLACK so Pepsico aired it! What were they thinking?
http://stereogum.com/1338781/pepsi-pulls-tyle...
If a white guy had produced this video, he would have been lynched.
I would not have thought it's racist, but rather stupid, moronic, insensitive and moslty appealing to today's 12 to 35-yr-old men who remain immature into middle-age. It treats defenceless little older ladies and rape like they were the the norm. Ever seen the Progressive, Geico and other stupid commercials?

Oh, Rogue, heard about this probable NRA adorator and gun lover who gave his FIVE-YR-OLD (yes, 5 years of age) a 22 cal carbine, he instantly killed his older sister or brother, not sure, so disgusting, I don't want details. How many of those Cletuses like you and LRS and Justice ha ha Dale and KFC GB and Un-Anti-American communist Lady and Frank etc would emulate this inbred creature?

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#153989 May 2, 2013
I know how you Libtards read between the lines but in no place in U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark nor the Fourteenth Amendment does it mention "natural born citizen"! NOWHERE!!!

Neither the 14th Amendment nor Wong Kim Ark make one a Natural Born Citizen, July 15, 2009

In defining what an Article II “natural born Citizen” is, we do not seek to read into the Constitution that which was not intended and written there by the Framers. Despite popular belief, the Fourteenth Amendment does not convey the status of “natural born Citizen” in its text nor in its intent. Some add an implication to the actual wording of the Fourteenth Amendment by equating the amendment’s “citizen” to Article II’s “natural born Citizen.” But nowhere does the 14th Amendment confer “natural born citizen” status. The words simply do not appear there, but some would have us believe they are implied. But the wording of the Amendment is clear in showing that it confers citizenship only and nothing more.

The intent and purpose of the amendment was to provide equal citizenship to all Americans either born on U.S. soil or naturalized therein and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. It does not grant “natural born Citizen” status. It only confers “citizen” status, as that is the exact word used by the Amendment itself and that is the same word that appears in Article I, II, III, and IV of the Constitution. It just conveys the status of “citizen,” and as we learned from how the Framers handled the Naturalization Acts of 1790 and 1795, being a “citizen” does not necessarily mean that one is a “natural born Citizen.”

The Fourteenth Amendment only tells us who may become members of the community called the United States, i.e., those born on U.S. soil or naturalized and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are U.S. citizens. The amendment was needed because under Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856), slaves and their descendents, whether free or not, were not considered as being members of that community even though born on U.S. soil and unlike the American Indians subject to the jurisdiction thereof. But the amendment only allowed these slaves and their descendents to become a member of the U.S. community by making them U.S. citizens. Once those persons or anybody else (e.g. Wong Kim Ark) so became a member of the U.S. community (became a U.S. citizen by birth on U.S. soil or through naturalization), then that person could join with another U.S. citizen and procreate a child on U.S. soil who would then be an Article II "natural born Citizen."
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/07/neither-14t...

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#153990 May 2, 2013
I am sure most of you have no idea what the purse is hooked on but for starters this is in a flight simulator and not a real aircraft.
The four yellow and black striped handles do two things. If you pull it straight on it 1) cuts off the fuel to that engine and it 2) arms the automatic fire extinguishers. Now, if she turns it left or right, it will fire one fire extinguisher. Turn it the other way it will fire another one.
Every engine does not have two extinguishers but the two engines of the same wing share the same bottles. There are two squibs on each bottle. One fires it goes to one engine and the other one shoots it into the other engine. But you get only one shot per bottle.
I have only on two occasions activated that lever. One was an actual in flight engine failure and the other one was a major fuel leak on engine start. Oh, the mechanic who had installed the fuel control, well, it forgot the gasket and when I hit the start button about ten gallons of jet fuel poured over the engine!!!

http://static.environmentalgraffiti.com/sites...
Grand Birther

Fairfax, VA

#153991 May 2, 2013
LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Barfer Girks, are you really this stupid? If you're going to make a play on words then I'll give you another, Native Born Citizen. Tell us Barfer, what is the difference between the two, native/natural? Please do not open your mouth anymore as only turds fall out! squidiot
Louisiana Loser, I realize you're very dumb and are incapable of legal research.

I'll help you: the courts use native and natural synonymously.

It would be helpful if you could actually cite some case law to support your childish and inane opinions, but every time that is asked of you, you fail miserably.
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#153992 May 2, 2013
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
Er, slug, "troll" may seem like a compliment when you are so addressed, but for most sane people, it's pejorative. And when I call you slithering slug, it's not meant as a compliment. Hope that clears it up for you.
Still playing Mrs. Buttinsky, huh? I really don't care how you "mean" anything. Your words are worthless here, as are you. LMAO insignificant squid excretion
Grand Birther

Fairfax, VA

#153993 May 2, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
I know how you Libtards read between the lines but in no place in U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark nor the Fourteenth Amendment does it mention "natural born citizen"! NOWHERE!!!
Neither the 14th Amendment nor Wong Kim Ark make one a Natural Born Citizen, July 15, 2009
In defining what an Article II “natural born Citizen” is, we do not seek to read into the Constitution that which was not intended and written there by the Framers. Despite popular belief, the Fourteenth Amendment does not convey the status of “natural born Citizen” in its text nor in its intent. Some add an implication to the actual wording of the Fourteenth Amendment by equating the amendment’s “citizen” to Article II’s “natural born Citizen.” But nowhere does the 14th Amendment confer “natural born citizen” status. The words simply do not appear there, but some would have us believe they are implied. But the wording of the Amendment is clear in showing that it confers citizenship only and nothing more.
The intent and purpose of the amendment was to provide equal citizenship to all Americans either born on U.S. soil or naturalized therein and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. It does not grant “natural born Citizen” status. It only confers “citizen” status, as that is the exact word used by the Amendment itself and that is the same word that appears in Article I, II, III, and IV of the Constitution. It just conveys the status of “citizen,” and as we learned from how the Framers handled the Naturalization Acts of 1790 and 1795, being a “citizen” does not necessarily mean that one is a “natural born Citizen.”
The Fourteenth Amendment only tells us who may become members of the community called the United States, i.e., those born on U.S. soil or naturalized and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are U.S. citizens. The amendment was needed because under Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856), slaves and their descendents, whether free or not, were not considered as being members of that community even though born on U.S. soil and unlike the American Indians subject to the jurisdiction thereof. But the amendment only allowed these slaves and their descendents to become a member of the U.S. community by making them U.S. citizens. Once those persons or anybody else (e.g. Wong Kim Ark) so became a member of the U.S. community (became a U.S. citizen by birth on U.S. soil or through naturalization), then that person could join with another U.S. citizen and procreate a child on U.S. soil who would then be an Article II "natural born Citizen."
http://puzo1.blogsark.ht ml
LOL, Rogue Dumbarse is too stupid to distinguish Mario Aputz's opinion from legal scholarship. Mario doesn't cite a single source to support his opinion, whereas any normal human being can simply link to the WKA decision and read the words for themselves.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#153994 May 2, 2013
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
I would not have thought it's racist, but rather stupid, moronic, insensitive and moslty appealing to today's 12 to 35-yr-old men who remain immature into middle-age. It treats defenceless little older ladies and rape like they were the the norm. Ever seen the Progressive, Geico and other stupid commercials?
Oh, Rogue, heard about this probable NRA adorator and gun lover who gave his FIVE-YR-OLD (yes, 5 years of age) a 22 cal carbine, he instantly killed his older sister or brother, not sure, so disgusting, I don't want details. How many of those Cletuses like you and LRS and Justice ha ha Dale and KFC GB and Un-Anti-American communist Lady and Frank etc would emulate this inbred creature?
One, how do you know he is a NRA anything? Because he has a gun? Tell us, do the street "venders" in Shitcago who carry guns, are they members of the NRA?
Now this happened not too long ago. What idiot would give a seven year old a 9mm handgun? When my g-son was 11 I gave him a BB rifle. I showed him how to use it and my daughter supervises. Last Christmas we went to the pistol range and let him shoot my Taurus Model 941 22 Mag revolver and he did better than my daughter was. But age 13 is much more mature than a 7 year old.

Salina boy dies after shooting accident with family By KSN TV
SALINA, Kansas – A 7-year-old Salina boy died Saturday night after accidentally shooting himself Friday afternoon. 4/15/2013

Gavin Brummett was shot in the head while handling a handgun with his dad and brother on their rural property near Salina.

http://www.ksn.com/2013/04/14/salina-boy-dies...

Oh Jacques, not all gun owners are NRA members. In fact only about 3% of all gun owners are NRA members. But you hate people who are NRA members when they are the least likely to commit crimes.
Grand Birther

Fairfax, VA

#153995 May 2, 2013
Birfoon homework assignment: find a case that distinguishes native and natural born citizen.

L O L O L O L

Have fun with that, dummies.
LRS

Shreveport, LA

#153996 May 2, 2013
Grand Birther wrote:
<quoted text>
Louisiana Loser, I realize you're very dumb and are incapable of legal research.
I'll help you: the courts use native and natural synonymously.
It would be helpful if you could actually cite some case law to support your childish and inane opinions, but every time that is asked of you, you fail miserably.
So, you don't think there is any difference? Did the framers think the two were interchangeable? All you're doing is making a play on words which is immature and a waste of time. Admit it! You poor dipshyt! monkeylips BTW, why was a distinction necessary? LMAO!!!

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#153997 May 2, 2013
Ya know, people in the FBI, CIA, etc. are turning on the Obama administration. Fox News has said they have five whistleblowers on the Benghazi attack and about ten on the Boston Marathon bombings.
These people are sick and tired of being lied to, or being accused of lying to, and being left out to dry by an incompetent Obama administration.
If Obama was worried about LTC Terry Lakin incident, he surely has to be worried now. If he is not, he is a total idiot!
Oh, you think not? Then why did they release yesterday the pictures of the three people they want to talk with? Yep, seven months after Benghazi and they are still trying to sweep it under the rug. But when there is a basketball-bulge in the center of the rug, people will notice!!!

Whistleblower: We Know Who Was Behind Benghazi Attack
Posted on May 2, 2013

Could this be the cover-up to take down Obama?
Check it out:

All three network newscasts on Monday and Tuesday ignored the shocking assertions made by a whistleblower who told Fox News that special forces could have responded to the 2012 terrorist attack on Benghazi. He also claimed that the United States knows who perpetrated last year’s assault on the U.S. embassy. Fox News’s Adam Housley interviewed a man he described as a “special ops member who watched as the deadly attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi unfolded.”

Read more: http://conservativebyte.com/2013/05/whistlebl...

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#153998 May 2, 2013
I am sure this is what Jacques was talking about. I usually leave links to subject I talk about but Jacques usually doesn't.
I have my grandson a Ruger 10/22 for his 14th b-day. One gift wrapped box had the rifle in it and the second smaller one had the two ten-round magazines in it. I gave the small box to my daughter as she is the custodian of the weapon and you can not shoot it without the magazine in it and it is easier to lock up the magazines.

Five-year-old child kills sister with gun he received as a gift
Kentucky coroner Gary White says "you learn to start shooting a gun here at a very young age" after a five-year-old US boy accidentally shot dead his two-year-old sister.
10:55AM BST 02 May 2013
The US boy accidentally shot his two-year-old sister to death with a rifle he had received as a gift last year, authorities said on Wednesday.
Gary White, a coroner in Cumberland County, Kentucky, said the children's mother was at home at the time and heard the gunshot when she stepped outside for a few minutes.
He said the rifle was kept in a corner, and that the family did not realise a bullet had been left inside it. The girl died of a single gunshot wound to the chest area.
Mr White also told the Lexington Herald-Leader newspaper that the boy received the .22-calibre rifle – especially made for children – as a gift.
The shooting, while accidental, highlights a cultural divide in the US debate over gun control, which again became a major issue after 20 young children and six adults were shot dead at a Connecticut school in December.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/nor...
Ellen1

Dedham, MA

#153999 May 2, 2013
Re: "Did the framers think the two were interchangeable? "

Answer: YES.

Native-born citizen and Natural-born citizen are synonyms. They were then, and they are now. In fact, as one major demonstration that they are synonyms and have long been considered so in common American use is the questions asked when men registered for the draft in WWI (yes, one).

They were asked whether or not they were citizens, and then, if they were, whether they were naturalized or natural born. Notice, only two possibilities, naturalized--meaning not citizens at birth---and natural born, meaning citizens at birth. Only two categories. Every citizen who is not naturalized is natural born.

That is the way that Tucker and Rawle, who knew the writers of the US Constitution, used the term Natural Born Citizen.

"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)

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
last post wins! (Dec '10) 7 min They cannot kill ... 2,746
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 15 min Cheech the Conser... 1,457,876
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 1 hr Moans6157 62,300
Four letter word game (Dec '11) 1 hr honeymylove 2,273
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 2 hr Doug77 9,840
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 2 hr Go Blue Forever 104,505
Word (Dec '08) 10 hr PEllen 6,836

Chicago Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages