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

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

Indianapolis, IN

#173514 Oct 1, 2013
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!!

Wong Kim Ark v. US, para. 34, "Nor can it be doubted that it is the inherent right of every independent nation to determine for itself, and according to its own constitution and laws, what classes of persons shall be entitled to its citizenship."

We did just that in the 14th Amendment, aliens and foreigners do not receive citizenship ipso facto, they must be naturalized.(See 14th Amendment)
And Dufus fantasizes that this amendment also changed the meaning of the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". Dufus makes a habit of being very wrong
Dale

Wichita, KS

#173515 Oct 1, 2013
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Neither the citizenship of the father NOR dual citizenship of the child at the time of birth has any effect whatever on Natural Born Citizen status. And, in fact, we have already had two presidents before Obama who were dual citizens at the time of birth, Woodrow Wilson because his mother never gave up her British subject status, and Dwight D. Eisenhower because old German laws made the grandchildren of its citizens German citizens at birth. And James Madison actually was a dual citizen at the time that he was president, having been made a full voting citizen of France by the French National Assembly during the French Revolution.
If dual citizen status could have any effect on our definition of Natural Born Citizen, then any foreign country could just pass a law making someone or some group of people citizens of that country and they would not be eligible. Mexico, for example, could just pass a law that said that any child born in Texas was also a Mexican citizen, and if dual citizen status had any effect on their Natural Born Citizen status, they would not be eligible to become president, not one of them.
Fogbow summarizes it this way: http://www.thefogbow.com/birther-claims-debun...
More important is that IF the writers of the US Constitution had wanted people with two or one foreign citizen parent not to be eligible or people who had been born with dual citizenship at the time of birth not to be eligible THEY WOULD HAVE SAID SO, and they didn't. Under strict construction rules and under libertarian thinking, something is not forbidden unless there is a specific law or constitutional statement that says that it is forbidden, and guess what, there is NO specific statement in the Constitution or in any of the writings of the members of the Constitutional Convention or any of the American leaders at the time that bars the children of foreigners or people who had been born dual citizens from becoming president.
In short there is nothing in the US Constitution that says either that the US-born children of foreigners or people who were dual citizens at birth (or dual citizens when president, like James Madison) are not eligible to be president. And, if they did not specifically forbid it, it is not forbidden.
LMAO!!! You just can't get around the fact that Jr. was born a citizen of his father's country.
Citizenship is by Constitutional Law, now if you can find dual-citizenship in the 14th amendment, then you win.

"This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, 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."
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

#173516 Oct 1, 2013
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!! You just can't get around the fact that Jr. was born a citizen of his father's country.
Citizenship is by Constitutional Law, now if you can find dual-citizenship in the 14th amendment, then you win.
"This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, 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."


Answer: A child born on US soil is neither an alien nor a foreigner, nor is she or he a naturalized citizen. A child born on US soil is a Natural Born US citizen, the only exception being the children of foreign diplomats.

And, if the writers of the US Constitution had intended that the US-born children of foreigners were to not be US citizens at birth or that the US-born children of foreigners were a lower category of citizens who were not eligible to become president, they would have told us---and they didn't.

Moreover, under 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

#173517 Oct 1, 2013
Learn to Read wrote:
<quoted text>
And Dufus fantasizes that this amendment also changed the meaning of the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". Dufus makes a habit of being very wrong
LMAO!!! I see you are just as dumb as ever.
The phrase, "and subject to the jurisdiction, thereof", simply means the US Constitution, since the Constitution has jurisdiction over the US.
Oh, foreigners and aliens have never been "and subject to the jurisdiction, thereof", if they were they would be called citizens.
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

#173519 Oct 1, 2013
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!! I see you are just as dumb as ever.
The phrase, "and subject to the jurisdiction, thereof", simply means the US Constitution, since the Constitution has jurisdiction over the US.
Oh, foreigners and aliens have never been "and subject to the jurisdiction, thereof", if they were they would be called citizens.
If the US constitution or any law specifically said that the US-born children of foreigners were not eligible to be president, they would not be eligible, but none does. If the US constitution or any law specifically said that US citizens who were dual nationals at birth are not eligible to be president, they would not be eligible to be president, but none does.

When something is not forbidden by law, it is permitted.
Dale

Wichita, KS

#173520 Oct 1, 2013
Ellen1 wrote:
“Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.”— Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition
(These links will work better than those shown above.)
http://www.fredthompsonsamerica.com/2012/07/3...
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyiname...
http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_eviden...
http://tesibria.typepad.com/whats_your_eviden...
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/bookmarks/fact...
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/01/natura...
http://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:/www.obama...
http://ohforgoodnesssake.com/...
LMAO!!! Foreigners and aliens have never been "and subject to the jurisdiction, thereof", they never lose their subject status of their country of origin, unless naturalized into the US.
Dale

Wichita, KS

#173521 Oct 1, 2013
subject status "to" their country of origin, unless naturalized into the US.
Learn to Read

Indianapolis, IN

#173522 Oct 1, 2013
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!! I see you are just as dumb as ever.
The phrase, "and subject to the jurisdiction, thereof", simply means the US Constitution, since the Constitution has jurisdiction over the US.
Oh, foreigners and aliens have never been "and subject to the jurisdiction, thereof", if they were they would be called citizens.
Since persons born here are neither aliens nor foreigners, your fable is as worthless as you.
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

#173524 Oct 1, 2013
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!! Foreigners and aliens have never been "and subject to the jurisdiction, thereof", they never lose their subject status of their country of origin, unless naturalized into the US.
Answer: A child born on US soil is neither an alien nor a foreigner, nor is she or he a naturalized citizen. A child born on US soil is a Natural Born US citizen, the only exception being the children of foreign diplomats.

If the writers of the US Constitution had intended that the US-born children of foreigners were to not be US citizens at birth or that the US-born children of foreigners were a lower category of citizens who were not eligible to become president, they would have told us---and they didn't. If the writers of the US Constitution had intended that dual citizens were not eligible to become president, they would have told us----and they didn't.

Moreover, under 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. Unless there is something specific in the Constitution that says that the US-born children of foreigners are not forbidden to become president, they are not forbidden to become president, and there is no such specific statement. Unless there is something specific in the Constitution that says that dual citizens are not eligible to be president, they are eligible, and there is no such specific statement.
Dale

Wichita, KS

#173525 Oct 1, 2013
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Answer: A child born on US soil is neither an alien nor a foreigner, nor is she or he a naturalized citizen. A child born on US soil is a Natural Born US citizen, the only exception being the children of foreign diplomats.
And, if the writers of the US Constitution had intended that the US-born children of foreigners were to not be US citizens at birth or that the US-born children of foreigners were a lower category of citizens who were not eligible to become president, they would have told us---and they didn't.
Moreover, under 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!!! 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.
Frank

Spokane, WA

#173526 Oct 1, 2013
Fox News Propaganda wrote:
<quoted text>
The wealthy has never been punished in America except when Republican President General Eisenhower had them paying 91% in taxes and had a balanced budget for average Americans.
The wealthy punished YOU ROGUE every single day and you accept that abuse.
Gates and Jobs employ millions and millions of Chinese, Indians, Pakistanis, NOT MANY AMERICANS etc. etc. etc.
Bob Dylan wrote this song in 1983 when Ronald Reagan and Daddy Bush were in the White House.
---------
Back in the 1950's when General Eisenhower was President the wealthiest top 1% of Americans had to pay 91% in taxes.
Propaganda is to democracy what violence is to dictatorship.
Ignorant masses who have to be marginalized for their own good.
In the twentieth century it was the Liberal Progressive Era that benefited most Americans.
The New Deal, The Fair Deal, The GI Bill, and the Great Society.
----------
Union Sundown
Well, my shoes, they come from Singapore,
My flashlight's from Taiwan,
My tablecloth's from Malaysia,
My belt buckle's from the Amazon.
You know, this shirt I wear comes from the Philippines
And the car I drive is a Chevrolet,
It was put together down in Argentina
By a guy makin' thirty cents a day.
Well, it's sundown on the union
And what's made in the U.S.A.
Sure was a good idea
'Til greed got in the way.
Well, this silk dress is from Hong Kong
And the pearls are from Japan.
Well, the dog collar's from India
And the flower pot's from Pakistan.
All the furniture, it says "Made in Brazil"
Where a woman, she slaved for sure
Bringin' home thirty cents a day to a family of twelve,
You know, that's a lot of money to her.
Well, it's sundown on the union
And what's made in the U.S.A.
Sure was a good idea
'Til greed got in the way.
Well, you know, lots of people complainin' that there is no work.
I say, "Why you say that for
When nothin' you got is U.S.-made?"
They don't make nothin' here no more,
You know, capitalism is above the law.
It say, "It don't count 'less it sells."
When it costs too much to build it at home
You just build it cheaper someplace else.
Well, it's sundown on the union
And what's made in the U.S.A.
Sure was a good idea
'Til greed got in the way.
Well, the job that you used to have,
They gave it to somebody down in El Salvador.
The unions are big business, friend,
And they're goin' out like a dinosaur.
They used to grow food in Kansas
Now they want to grow it on the moon and eat it raw.
I can see the day coming when even your home garden
Is gonna be against the law.
Well, it's sundown on the union
And what's made in the U.S.A.
Sure was a good idea
'Til greed got in the way.
Democracy don't rule the world,
You'd better get that in your head.
This world is ruled by violence
But I guess that's better left unsaid.
From Broadway to the Milky Way,
That's a lot of territory indeed
And a man's gonna do what he has to do
When he's got a hungry mouth to feed.
Well, it's sundown on the union
And what's made in the U.S.A.
Sure was a good idea
'Til greed got in the way.
Copyright ©1983
http://www.bobdylan.com/#/songs/union-sundown
This is the United States of America,we are not supposed to punish people for their success. The idea of our society is to attempt to help every one prosper and hope that all can reach their potential, not to attempt to lower every ones standard of living down to the lowest so that every one is the same. Since LBJ's War on Poverty more people are in poverty today than in the past sixty years. Union membership has fallen to a point that now Government Union employees are a majority of all union employees. Why do government workers need a union?
Dale

Wichita, KS

#173527 Oct 1, 2013
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Neither the citizenship of the father NOR dual citizenship of the child at the time of birth has any effect whatever on Natural Born Citizen status. And, in fact, we have already had two presidents before Obama who were dual citizens at the time of birth, Woodrow Wilson because his mother never gave up her British subject status, and Dwight D. Eisenhower because old German laws made the grandchildren of its citizens German citizens at birth. And James Madison actually was a dual citizen at the time that he was president, having been made a full voting citizen of France by the French National Assembly during the French Revolution.
If dual citizen status could have any effect on our definition of Natural Born Citizen, then any foreign country could just pass a law making someone or some group of people citizens of that country and they would not be eligible. Mexico, for example, could just pass a law that said that any child born in Texas was also a Mexican citizen, and if dual citizen status had any effect on their Natural Born Citizen status, they would not be eligible to become president, not one of them.
Fogbow summarizes it this way: http://www.thefogbow.com/birther-claims-debun...
More important is that IF the writers of the US Constitution had wanted people with two or one foreign citizen parent not to be eligible or people who had been born with dual citizenship at the time of birth not to be eligible THEY WOULD HAVE SAID SO, and they didn't. Under strict construction rules and under libertarian thinking, something is not forbidden unless there is a specific law or constitutional statement that says that it is forbidden, and guess what, there is NO specific statement in the Constitution or in any of the writings of the members of the Constitutional Convention or any of the American leaders at the time that bars the children of foreigners or people who had been born dual citizens from becoming president.
In short there is nothing in the US Constitution that says either that the US-born children of foreigners or people who were dual citizens at birth (or dual citizens when president, like James Madison) are not eligible to be president. And, if they did not specifically forbid it, it is not forbidden.
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.
Frank

Spokane, WA

#173529 Oct 1, 2013
Learn to Read wrote:
<quoted text>
And Dufus fantasizes that this amendment also changed the meaning of the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". Dufus makes a habit of being very wrong
Barack Obama's father was never a citizen of the United States,not even for one day.
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

#173530 Oct 1, 2013
WelbyMD wrote:
<quoted text>All we can really go by is original intent on the part of our founding fathers. What was their understanding of "natural-born Citizen"?
Impeach the Kenyan-born Antichrist!
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 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)

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.
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

#173531 Oct 1, 2013
Frank wrote:
<quoted text>Barack Obama's father was never a citizen of the United States,not even for one day.
So? If the writers of the US Constitution had intended that the US-born children of foreign fathers were to be barred from becoming president, they would have said so---but they didn't.
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.

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
Amy 2-26-15 2 min Sublime1 7
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 2 min Realtime 1,189,448
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 8 min truth to power 51,339
Dear Abby 2-26-15 28 min Blunt Advice 4
daughter/father appropriate physical contact (Mar '12) 49 min understand 23
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 1 hr Michael Satterfield 99,153
Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 1 hr TRD 69,087
Chicago Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 4:47 pm PST

NFL 4:47PM
Indianapolis Colts sign Matt Hasselbeck to extension
Bleacher Report 5:03 PM
Matt Hasselbeck and Colts Agree on New Contract: Latest Details, Reaction
ESPN 5:56 PM
Hasselbeck inks 1-year extension with Colts
Bleacher Report 3:59 AM
Fleener Needs to Improve to Warrant a Top Contract
Bleacher Report 4:00 AM
6 Best Options to Replace T-Rich This Offseason