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

There are 189865 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.

Ellen1

Arlington, MA

#173532 Oct 1, 2013
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!! The 14th Amendment makes only two types of citizens, those that are naturalized and those that are born here with out any foreign attachments (Natural Born Citizens).
Looks like Obama was born with foreign attachments, like being a citizen of his father's country.
If the writers of the 14th Amendment (or for that matter any part of the Constitution) had intended US-born children with foreign attachments to be barred from becoming president, they would have said so---but they didn't.
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

#173533 Oct 1, 2013
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!! It will take a Constitutional amendment to recognize a dual-citizenship status, you can't read into the Constitution what isn't there and since the 14th amendment makes the citizens, it does not recognize the dual-citizenship status.
Looks like Jr. was born an alien in the US (Constitutional Law).
Under Constitutional Construction, if it ain't there it ain't the law.
You are correct, you can't read into the Constitution what isn't there---and it does not say that the US born children of foreigners are not eligible to be president. You can't read into the Constitution what isn't there---and it does not say that dual citizens are not eligible to be president.
Dale

Wichita, KS

#173534 Oct 1, 2013
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
First, it is not their intent that matters, it is what they actually wrote. If they had intended that the US-born children of foreigners were to be barred from becoming president, they should have said so---but they didn't.
Second, although their intent is less important than what they wrote, in fact we do know their intent, and it was to include ALL the US-born children of foreigners. How do we know that? Well in two ways. First because they never used the term Natural Born in any way other than it was used in the common law, and the common law includes all children born in the country (except for the kids of foreign diplomats, of course). And, second, because we have quotations from leading AMERICAN (not Swiss) Constitutional scholars at the time, both of whom knew the writers of the US Constitution, and both of whom use Natural Born Citizen just the way that it was used in the common law.
"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 NBC 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)
So, obviously the US Supreme Court was correct in its ruling in the Wong Kim Ark case that the term Natural Born Citizen comes from the common law and includes every child born in the USA. And, of course, since that is the key ruling on the matter and it has never been overturned, that in fact is the law---which ten appeals courts have all recognized.
But the bottom line is still that under strict construction and libertarian principles, something is not forbidden by the Constitution or any law unless the is a specific statement that that thing is forbidden, and there is nothing in the Constitution or any law that forbids either the US-born children of foreigners or dual citizens from becoming president. Not a word.
LMAO!!! Can you show us where common law was used in the following?

The first amendment is to section one, declaring that all "persons born in the United States and Subject to the jurisdiction thereof (US Constitution), are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside. I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already (Civil Rights Act of 1866), that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction (US Constitution), is by virtue of natural law (Law of Nations) and national law (Civil Rights Act of 1866) a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens,(Note the Comma) who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.
Learn to Read

Indianapolis, IN

#173535 Oct 1, 2013
Frank wrote:
<quoted text>Barack Obama's father was never a citizen of the United States,not even for one day.
And that has no impact on his status as a Natural Born Citizen.
Dale

Wichita, KS

#173536 Oct 1, 2013
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
If the writers of the 14th Amendment (or for that matter any part of the Constitution) had intended US-born children with foreign attachments to be barred from becoming president, they would have said so---but they didn't.
LMAO!!! You can't get any clearer than the following.

The first amendment is to section one, declaring that all "persons born in the United States and Subject to the jurisdiction thereof (US Constitution), are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside. I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already (Civil Rights Act of 1866), that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction (US Constitution), is by virtue of natural law (Law of Nations) and national law (Civil Rights Act of 1866) a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens,(Note the Comma) who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.

Offered and became Constitutional Law in its entirety, 1868.
Dale

Wichita, KS

#173537 Oct 1, 2013
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
You are correct, you can't read into the Constitution what isn't there---and it does not say that the US born children of foreigners are not eligible to be president. You can't read into the Constitution what isn't there---and it does not say that dual citizens are not eligible to be president.
LMAO!!! No such thing as a dual-citizen per the 14th Amendment, it only recognizes a naturalized citizen and a citizen without foreign attachments (a Natural Born Citizen).
As I have shared with you so many times, aliens are not nor have they ever been, " subject to the jurisdiction, thereof", the US Constitution.
Learn to Read

Indianapolis, IN

#173538 Oct 1, 2013
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!! No such thing as a dual-citizen per the 14th Amendment, it only recognizes a naturalized citizen and a citizen without foreign attachments (a Natural Born Citizen).
As I have shared with you so many times, aliens are not nor have they ever been, " subject to the jurisdiction, thereof", the US Constitution.
And Dufus has never been right
Dale

Wichita, KS

#173539 Oct 1, 2013
Learn to Read wrote:
<quoted text>
And Dufus has never been right
LMAO!!! Hello, dummy!
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

#173543 Oct 1, 2013
Truth Detector wrote:
Barack Obama's biographical brief edited repeatedly over 17 years, but Kenyan birthplace changed just weeks after his presidential run announced
That is just amazing, huh SHEEPLE?
Obama's biographical brief was written and edited by a literary agent, who has admitted to making the mistake. Are you, goat-le, saying that you believe that Obama was born in Kenya? If so, you are showing how gullible you are.
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

#173544 Oct 1, 2013
Truth Detector wrote:
<quoted text>
That was The usurpers own story!
You saying that he lied?
Barack Obama's biographical brief edited repeatedly over 17 years, but Kenyan birthplace changed just weeks after his presidential run announced
No, it was not his story. It was the literary agent's story, who admitted to making the mistake. Are you saying that she is lying when she said that she made the mistake? Or are you saying that you are nutty and gullible enough to believe that Obama was born in Kenya?
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

#173545 Oct 1, 2013
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!! Can you show us where common law was used in the following?
The first amendment is to section one, declaring that all "persons born in the United States and Subject to the jurisdiction thereof (US Constitution), are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside. I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already (Civil Rights Act of 1866), that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction (US Constitution), is by virtue of natural law (Law of Nations) and national law (Civil Rights Act of 1866) a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens,(Note the Comma) who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.
First, that is a quotation by James Bingham, who 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.

Second, IF he had really intended that the US-born children of foreigners should not be eligible to be president (as the above quotation shows he did NOT intend), he would have written that into the Constitution. But he didn't. If he had really intended that dual citizens should not be eligible to be president, he would have written that into the Constitution. But he didn't.

It does not say in any part of the Constitution that the US-born children of foreigners are not eligible to be president. And, since there is no mention of them being barred from becoming president, they are allowed to be president. It does not say in any part of the Constitution that dual citizens are not eligible to be president. And, since there is no mention of them being barred from becoming president, they are allowed to be president.

Under both strict construction judicial interpretation and libertarian principles unless something is specifically forbidden in a law or in the US Constitution, it is NOT forbidden. And there is nothing in the US Constitution or any law that forbids the US-born children of foreigners or US citizens who happen to be dual nationals from becoming president. Not a word.
Dale

Wichita, KS

#173546 Oct 1, 2013
Aliens/Illegal aliens are not taxed by the US Constitution, therefore they aren't subjects of or "subject to the jurisdiction, thereof", this is a condition that only a citizen can enjoy.
Yep, all children born in this country of aliens automatically receive the citizenship of their father's country of origin, just a fact that can't be debated.
Oh my, there goes the anchor babies!!!
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

#173547 Oct 1, 2013
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!! No such thing as a dual-citizen per the 14th Amendment, it only recognizes a naturalized citizen and a citizen without foreign attachments (a Natural Born Citizen).
As I have shared with you so many times, aliens are not nor have they ever been, " subject to the jurisdiction, thereof", the US Constitution.
There is not a single word in the 14th Amendment that says that the US-born child of foreign citizens is not a US citizen at birth or that the US-born child of foreign citizens is a lower-level citizen than the US-born child of US citizens. There is not a single word in the 14th Amendment that says that a dual citizen is not a US citizen, or that a dual citizen is not a Natural Born Citizen.

IF it does not say it, strict construction principles hold that you cannot claim that the constitution means it, and it does not say it. libertarian principles hold that unless the Constitution or a law takes away a right or a privilege, then that right or privilege has not been taken away. And there is not a word in the 14th Amendment (or in any part of the US Constitution for that matter) that says that the US-born children of foreigners or dual citizens do not have the right or the privilege to become president. NOT A WORD.
Dale

Wichita, KS

#173550 Oct 1, 2013
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
First, that is a quotation by James Bingham, who 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.
Second, IF he had really intended that the US-born children of foreigners should not be eligible to be president (as the above quotation shows he did NOT intend), he would have written that into the Constitution. But he didn't. If he had really intended that dual citizens should not be eligible to be president, he would have written that into the Constitution. But he didn't.
It does not say in any part of the Constitution that the US-born children of foreigners are not eligible to be president. And, since there is no mention of them being barred from becoming president, they are allowed to be president. It does not say in any part of the Constitution that dual citizens are not eligible to be president. And, since there is no mention of them being barred from becoming president, they are allowed to be president.
Under both strict construction judicial interpretation and libertarian principles unless something is specifically forbidden in a law or in the US Constitution, it is NOT forbidden. And there is nothing in the US Constitution or any law that forbids the US-born children of foreigners or US citizens who happen to be dual nationals from becoming president. Not a word.
LMAO!!! Everyone knows an alien isn't a subject of nor subject to the US Constitution and we all know Jr. was born a citizen of his father's country, since Sr. wasn't a citizen of the US, just a fact that you can't argue with.
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

#173551 Oct 1, 2013
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!! It will take a Constitutional amendment to recognize a dual-citizenship status, you can't read into the Constitution what isn't there and since the 14th amendment makes the citizens, it does not recognize the dual-citizenship status.
Looks like Jr. was born an alien in the US (Constitutional Law).
Under Constitutional Construction, if it ain't there it ain't the law.
You are correct. You can't read into the Constitution what isn't there. And there is nothing in the Constitution that bars either the US-born children of foreigners or dual citizens from becoming president. Not a single word. You cannot read into the Constitution something that isn't there.
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

#173552 Oct 1, 2013
Dale wrote:
Aliens/Illegal aliens are not taxed by the US Constitution, therefore they aren't subjects of or "subject to the jurisdiction, thereof", this is a condition that only a citizen can enjoy.
Yep, all children born in this country of aliens automatically receive the citizenship of their father's country of origin, just a fact that can't be debated.
Oh my, there goes the anchor babies!!!
You can't read into the Constitution what isn't there, and there is not a single word in the Constitution that bars either the US-born children of foreigners or dual citizens from becoming president.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#173553 Oct 1, 2013
VETERANS DEFY SHUTDOWN & ‘BREAK’ INTO WWII MEMORIAL — CAN YOU GUESS WHO HELPED THEM? Oct. 1, 2013

Several Republican members of Congress removed barricades from the World War II Memorial in Washington, D.C. on Monday and escorted veterans onto the grounds that were legally closed because of the government shutdown.

Michele Bachmann at WWII Memorial
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

#173554 Oct 1, 2013
Truth Detector wrote:
<quoted text>
Such as???
His own biographical words touting his birth in Kenya?
His fake birth certificate? Deemed fraudulent by Law enforcement officials and a person who works for Perkins Coie.
Yeah that is overwhelming proof of fraud.
His literary agent wrote the bio and admitted to making the mistake. His birth certificate was not forged. Birthers have not even told you that the person who works for Perkins Coie is an expert in signature analysis, not on digital documents, and, guess what, the Cold Case Posse has a 40-page report from the person who works for Perkins Coie, but has never published it.

And, double guess what, birther sites have not even told their readers (including you) that there is no evidence that Obama's mother even had a passport in 1961----and very very few 18-year-olds did in those days (which is a fact that birther sites did not tell you either). And they neglected to tell you that extremely few women traveled late in pregnancy in 1961 because of the risk of stillbirths. Yet they would like gullible people like you to assume that she was one of the few who had a passport and one of the extremely few women who traveled late in pregnancy (and she could not have traveled earlier because she was attending college), and that the birth certificate is forged and that the officials of BOTH parties in Hawaii are lying when they repeatedly confirmed that they sent both the short form and the long form to Obama and that ALL the facts on the copy that the White House put online are exactly the same, repeat EXACTLY the same, as on what they sent to Obama.

For Obama to have been born in a foreign country:

(1) Obama’s relatives would have had to have been rich enough (and they weren’t. In 1961 Obama’s grandfather was a furniture salesman, and his grandmother was a low-level employee in a bank [she did not become a vice president until 1971], and his father went from Kenya to Hawaii on a free flight) and dumb enough to send their daughter at high risk of stillbirth to a foreign country to give birth—-—despite there being fine hospitals in Hawaii;

(2) Obama’s mother would have had to have traveled overseas ALONE (since WND has proven with a FOI Act request that Obama senior stayed in Hawaii throughout 1961) and somehow got Obama back to the USA without getting him entered on her US passport or getting a visa for him (which would have had to have been applied for in a US consulate in that country and the records would still exist);

(3) got the officials in Hawaii to record his birth in Hawaii despite (as birthers claim) his being born in another country and somehow got the teacher who wrote home to her father, named Stanley, about the birth in Hawaii of a child to a woman named Stanley to lie (and since the woman’s father’s name really was Stanley, she would have had to have found one of the very few women with fathers of that name to do it).

If you sincerely believe that Obama could have been born in a foreign country, then you could answer all three points. For Obama to have been born in a foreign country, all three would have had to have happened.

And, as I said, there isn't even evidence that Obama's mother had a passport in 1961, and birthers have her passport file (and they failed to tell us the date on which that file was created, and if it was created after 1961, she could not have had a passport in 1961. So, duh, I wonder why they didn't tell us the date on which her passport file was created????)
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

#173555 Oct 1, 2013
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!! Everyone knows an alien isn't a subject of nor subject to the US Constitution and we all know Jr. was born a citizen of his father's country, since Sr. wasn't a citizen of the US, just a fact that you can't argue with.
A child born on US soil is not an alien except for the children of foreign diplomats. What gave you the nutty idea that a child born on US soil is an alien????
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

#173556 Oct 1, 2013
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!! The 14th Amendment makes only two types of citizens, those that are naturalized and those that are born here with out any foreign attachments (Natural Born Citizens).
Looks like Obama was born with foreign attachments, like being a citizen of his father's country.
If the writers of the 14th Amendment (or of any part of the Constitution) had meant a person born with foreign attachments not to be eligible to be president, they would have said so. You cannot read into the Constitution something that is not there.

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) 2 min Realtime 1,232,717
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 10 min litesong 53,496
“I’ll have those negras voting Democratic for t... 26 min LBJ Said It 2
@POTUS: Obama unveils new TWITTER account 30 min PotusIsEVILTWIT 3
News 17 shot-2 fatally-in bloody start to Memorial D... 32 min Military wife 4
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 37 min Michael Satterfield 99,540
amy 5-25-15 1 hr mrs gladys kravitz 3
More from around the web

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]