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

Full story: Chicago Tribune

The U.S. Supreme Court will consider Friday whether to take up a lawsuit challenging President-elect Barack Obama 's U.S. citizenship, a continuation of a New Jersey case embraced by some opponents of Obama's ...
Comments
153,001 - 153,020 of 174,930 Comments Last updated 19 min ago
Dale

Hutchinson, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#173521
Oct 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

subject status "to" their country of origin, unless naturalized into the US.
Learn to Read

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#173522
Oct 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#173524
Oct 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

Hutchinson, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#173525
Oct 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#173526
Oct 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

Hutchinson, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#173527
Oct 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#173529
Oct 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#173530
Oct 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#173531
Oct 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#173532
Oct 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#173533
Oct 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

Hutchinson, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#173534
Oct 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#173535
Oct 1, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

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

Hutchinson, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#173536
Oct 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

Hutchinson, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#173537
Oct 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#173538
Oct 1, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

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

Hutchinson, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#173539
Oct 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

Arlington, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#173543
Oct 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#173544
Oct 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#173545
Oct 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

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

87 Users are viewing the Chicago Forum right now

Search the Chicago Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 2 min Eman 1,082,244
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 6 min ritedownthemiddle 45,834
Last word + 2 (Mar '12) 33 min Hatti_Hollerand 473
Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 1 hr TRD 68,046
Amy 7-28 1 hr Sublime1 16
get your prescribed drugs here from our Dr 1 hr Dr beckyhills 1
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 2 hr Eric 68,396
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 7 hr Mister Tonka 97,562
•••

Beach Hazards Statement for Cook County was issued at July 28 at 2:52PM CDT

•••
•••
•••

Chicago Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Chicago News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Chicago
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••