BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit ...

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

There are 239506 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.

Justice Dale

United States

#154035 May 2, 2013
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
ngham 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, Senator Lyman Trumball, the actual author of the citizenship clause of the 14th amendment, 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 Paschale'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)
LMAO!!! Yes, in 1869 all persons born in the US not subject to any foreign power could be "subject to the jurisdiction, thereof", the US Constitution, Natural Born Citizens.
Trumbull wasn't the actual author of the Citizenship Clause.
The remainder of your post is irrelevant, since the 14th amendment was ratified in 1868 and became law of the land.
Justice Dale

United States

#154036 May 2, 2013
Learn to Read wrote:
<quoted text>
Poor Dufus. Every time you post your fable the world laughs. Sucks to be Dufus. Do the world a favor. Get some new material
LMAO!!! The only thing that sucks, is you inability to understand what you read.

Since: Oct 09

Moreno Valley, CA

#154037 May 2, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
I have already stated my interests. Poopo thinks Obama's award ceremony was far more important that this murder trial. And apparently the LSM also feels that way.<quoted text>
Not one of you Libtards has ever explained what Obama did in 2008 to win the 2008 Nobel Peace Prize? Being the first half-black to be elected president is not a reason to be even recommended for the Nobel Peace Prize.
In other words, the Nobel Peace Prize has become a Liberal political football
You really need to do something about your senility Rogue as it appears to be getting worse and I do believe they have medication that can at least slow the progression.

Liberals need not explain anything the Nobel committee does as they have their own proficient spokes persons who are very capable of explaining their own decisions whether you agree with them or not.

That said, I’ll post the same explanation and video I posted a couple of weeks ago when you posited the same question. However in short he was awarded the prize for his vision.

“The president has produced an entirely new international climate since taking office, which is a concrete achievement in and of itself”
http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/20091009...
Justice Dale

United States

#154038 May 2, 2013
Ellen1 wrote:
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)
LMAO!!! You seem to forget, everything changed in 1866/1868, states no longer made citizens.
Yep, in order to be a citizen at birth, you had to be "and subject to the jurisdiction, there of", just simply saying not a citizen of another nation at birth.
The US Constitution has never recognized a dual-citizenship status and the US can not strip a citizenship from anyone, unless requested by that person.
Learn to Read

Whiteland, IN

#154039 May 2, 2013
WelbyMD wrote:
<quoted text>The word 'natural" means without adulteration, undoubted, and that is why Obama is NOT a "natural-born citizen" of the United States of America. By the letter of the law, at the time, he was born a British Subject before he became an Indonesian. The Hawaiian Birth Certificate is forged and this bisexual thug is using yet another of numerous fake Social Security numbers. Trump, Pat Boone, Alan Keyes, Sheriff Joe Arpaio were all correct when they publicly proclaimed "Obama is illegal." Thanks to the Freemasons we have this usurping despot ushering in the NWO as Big Brother.
So tell us Doc. Are there any groups of more than 7 people that aren't out to get you?
Grand Birther

Oregon, OH

#154040 May 2, 2013
LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
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!!!
Louisiana Loser, I noticed a whole lot of gum flapping and absolutely no support for your childish views.

This is getting to be quite a habit with you.

All you have to do is simply support your infantile opinion on jurisdiction with case law. It's also very simple: you can support your silly opinion with case law that distinguishes native and natural born or you can stop whining.

Looks like you choose to continue to boo hoo.
Learn to Read

Whiteland, IN

#154041 May 2, 2013
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!! The only thing that sucks, is you inability to understand what you read.
Says the moron that runs for cover everytime his fable is challenged
Grand Birther

Oregon, OH

#154042 May 2, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, a non-judicial opinion. Worthless!
Rogue Moron again proves he is too dumb and has too little an attention span to read the WKA decision. The words are used interchangeably throughout.

There is only citizenship or alien status.

Citizenship is only distinguished between naturalized and natural born. Anyone born in the country not to an invading force or diplomat parents is a natural born citizen.

This is law that has been settled for over 100 years. It's not going to be overturned for the like of a few birfoons, and soon you'll see the requirements to become president loosened to include those wholly foreign born, but probably not within the lifetimes of elderly and idiotic birfoons.

Boo hoo hoo.
Grand Birther

Oregon, OH

#154043 May 2, 2013
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!! The only thing that sucks, is you inability to understand what you read.
Justice Dumbarse, too bad you're unable to actually support your inanities.

You're a strict constructionalist, whoop de doo.

All you need now is to actually be right and to get four more Justices on the SC that have similar forms of interpretation.

Too bad neither of those things is happening, huh?

Boo hoo hoo
Justice Dale

United States

#154044 May 2, 2013
Learn to Read wrote:
<quoted text>
Says the moron that runs for cover everytime his fable is challenged
LMAO!!! You a challenge, surly you jest!! You better learn to read, first!!!

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#154045 May 2, 2013
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
Evangelicals? What's that go to the with the Constitution?
What does this" "What's that go to the with the Constitution?", mean?
Learn to Read

Whiteland, IN

#154046 May 2, 2013
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!! You a challenge, surly you jest!! You better learn to read, first!!!
Duck and cover Dufus. Duck and cover

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#154047 May 2, 2013
Learn to Read wrote:
<quoted text>
The MD Court disagrees. They say that SCOTUS clearly held that born here = natural born citizen.
So did the AZ Court ...
Allen v. Obama (Arizona 2012) ruling:“Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co., 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986(1931), and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President
Ah, states can not rule on the constitutionality of any federal law! Only federal courts can do that.
Justice Dale

United States

#154048 May 2, 2013
Grand Birther wrote:
<quoted text>
Justice Dumbarse, too bad you're unable to actually support your inanities.
You're a strict constructionalist, whoop de doo.
All you need now is to actually be right and to get four more Justices on the SC that have similar forms of interpretation.
Too bad neither of those things is happening, huh?
Boo hoo hoo
LMAO!!! I don't have to support anything, that is all accomplished by the framers of the Constitution and its amendments.
I don't need the USSC, they do not have the final say, that is left to the US Constitution, its amendment and those that framed both.
The US Constitution has jurisdiction over all three branches of our government and precedents can not be set with Unconstitutional rulings.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#154049 May 2, 2013
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
You wrote : "At the time of the assault, no one knew how long it would last. What if it had gone on for a few days?" Thanks for answering my question. So, nothing COULD be done. Why have you been constantly blaming Obama for not taking action? And why do you suppose he or Sec of State Clinton would've been informed from the very beginning of the attack?
Preventing witnesses? What about Clinton and CIA head testimonies? Can you go much higher than that? How is Obama preventing other witnesses from testifying? Any inside info about that? ALL networks report what or what they don't want to report. That is why trash like foxnews.com is still allowed to function. Oh, I don't hate Foxnews.com . You invented that. Show me where I said I hated foxnews.com . Hate is a strong word. I hardly ever use it except to say I hate green peas.
Oh, you don't have an embassy in Benghazi. Embassies can only be located in capital cities. That would be Tripoli.
Ah, Hillary Clinton and the "CIA head" were not in Benghazi at the time of the attack. Let's say you get pulled over for drunk driving and when you go to court, you refuse to testify. But you friend who was not with you the night of the DUI claims you were not drunk. How would he know, he was not there? Oh, he asked you and you were not drunk, so that was why he was qualified to answer for you?!?
Now, you say networks only have to report what they want to and not report what they want to be but did not Poopo bash Fox News two weeks ago because they did not cover Obama's award ceremony in Israel?
And if they do not report on a particular subject because someone at the White House told them not to , OR ELSE, is that okay?
You Libtardian Logic is showing!!!

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#154051 May 2, 2013
How/s that twit out west that is being tried for murdering her boy friend and that seems to be a very big issue with ABC, CBS, NBC,,,,, and Fox News. But only Fox News is covering the Dr. Gosnell murder trial and the Gosnell trial potentially will have a very big impact on the whole country will little miss twit will not.
I don't know the name of the twit and I am not sure if the trial is in California or Nevada or another state. And I don't care either. But a low of low-IQ people seem interested in it!
Justice Dale

United States

#154052 May 2, 2013
Learn to Read wrote:
<quoted text>
Duck and cover Dufus. Duck and cover
LMAO!!! Your post is just like you, irrelevant!

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#154054 May 2, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
I have already stated my interests. Poopo thinks Obama's award ceremony was far more important that this murder trial. And apparently the LSM also feels that way.<quoted text>
Not one of you Libtards has ever explained what Obama did in 2008 to win the 2008 Nobel Peace Prize? Being the first half-black to be elected president is not a reason to be even recommended for the Nobel Peace Prize.
In other words, the Nobel Peace Prize has become a Liberal political football
Poppo wrote:
<quoted text>
You really need to do something about your senility Rogue as it appears to be getting worse and I do believe they have medication that can at least slow the progression.
Liberals need not explain anything the Nobel committee does as they have their own proficient spokes persons who are very capable of explaining their own decisions whether you agree with them or not.
That said, I’ll post the same explanation and video I posted a couple of weeks ago when you posited the same question. However in short he was awarded the prize for his vision.
“The president has produced an entirely new international climate since taking office, which is a concrete achievement in and of itself”
http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/20091009...
Zoom, right over your head. What does,“The president has produced an entirely new international climate since taking office, which is a concrete achievement in and of itself”, mean?
Okay, I will type slow----ly sooooo you miiiight betttter under----stand. Thw award was for what he did in 2008, right? No, go to the video and pick up at 1:08 where he says, "the preceding year", which means DURING that year.
And last,“produced an entirely new international climate since..." is NOT an accomplishment!
And one final comment, why is this Nobel idiot trying to explain this? If it is so evident he was the best selection, they no one would have questioned it much less tens of thousands of people from all over the world.
To me, the Nobel Peace Prize has become a, "Hey, I am more Socialistic than you are", which makes it meaningless.
Grand Birther

Oregon, OH

#154055 May 2, 2013
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!! I don't have to support anything, that is all accomplished by the framers of the Constitution and its amendments.
I don't need the USSC, they do not have the final say, that is left to the US Constitution, its amendment and those that framed both.
The US Constitution has jurisdiction over all three branches of our government and precedents can not be set with Unconstitutional rulings.
Yeah, you're crazy. Sorry you're an idiot and crazy.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#154056 May 2, 2013
Any person with the slightest amount of integrity would have aks that his name withdrawn from consideration and if he did win would graciously decline the Nobel Peace Prize. If he had, he would have won over many more people's RESPECT and that is far more important than winning a popularity contest.
But Obama is an egomaniac who thinks the Sun revolves around him.

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 USAsince1680 1,509,410
News Scientists say they have proved climate change ... (Dec '08) 7 min Patriot AKA Bozo 8,071
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 16 min Patriot AKA Bozo 63,570
Double Word Game (Dec '11) 59 min They cannot kill ... 3,631
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 1 hr They cannot kill ... 10,500
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 4 hr Sublime1 105,060
Graduation in Detroit. 5 hr BHO is EVIL 4

Chicago Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages