BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit ...

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

There are 207492 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.

Dale

Wichita, KS

#173763 Oct 3, 2013
Learn to Read wrote:
<quoted text>
That explains your repetitive dance moves
LMAO!!! Is that a disparaging comment against the American Indian Tribes?

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Wallingford, CT

#173765 Oct 3, 2013
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!! The Constitution is the only law that creates a citizen, not the Naturalization Act.
"The Congress shall have Power To ... establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization ...."

What part of "Congress shall have the power to" does Dufus Dale not understand?
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Since day 1 under the Constitution Congress has had the authority to enact naturalization law. Guess what Dufus? That's much more than 147 years that aliens have been required to be under the jurisdiction of the US before being naturalized in the US.
Grow up.
Dale

Wichita, KS

#173766 Oct 3, 2013
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
"The Congress shall have Power To ... establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization ...."
What part of "Congress shall have the power to" does Dufus Dale not understand?
<quoted text>
LMAO!!!! Only the Constitution has the power to create a citizen, since that power was taken away from the States by the 14th amendment.
Dale

Wichita, KS

#173767 Oct 3, 2013
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
"The Congress shall have Power To ... establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization ...."
What part of "Congress shall have the power to" does Dufus Dale not understand?
<quoted text>
LMAO!!! You still haven't answered my question!!!

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#173768 Oct 3, 2013
Learn to Read wrote:
Question for the Tepublicans. Many TeaBaggers promised to shut down the Government during the most recent campaign season. Now that they've finally found one campaign promise that they have been able to keep they are giving all the "credit" to Obama. Why don't they want to take the credit for keeping their promise?
Did you say the same thing when Tip O'Neal shut down the government a dozen times when Reagan was president? It is O'Bummer Boy who will not negotiate even one iota whereas Bill Clinton negotiated with Newt Gingrich.
O'Bummer is a spoiled brat who demands he get his way.
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

#173769 Oct 3, 2013
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!! No, Bingham was right in 1869, since the 14th amendment was ratified in 1868, which all people that received citizenship had no foreign attachments.
We haven't used English Common to make citizens since 1866, it is Constitutional Law now.(see 14th Amendment)
Yes the USSC was wrong, as a matter of fact they violated the Constitution. The only way for the Constitution to be altered in any way is through an amendment.
The US Supreme Court is the official final authority on what the US Constitution means, and you are a nut. It is right, and you are wrong. Meese and the the Heritage Foundation are right, and you are wrong. Bingham is right, and you are wrong:

“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)”

The ten appeals courts that ruled on presidential eligibility, nine on Obama one on McCain, are all right, and you are wrong:

Here are some of them:

Hollander v. McCain (New Hampshire 2008) ruling:“Those born “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” U.S. Const., amend. XIV, have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since the time of the founding, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 674-75 (1898), and thus eligible for the presidency..."

Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana (Indiana 2008 – Appellate Court) ruling:“Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”

Tisdale v. Obama (Virginia federal court 2012) ruling:“It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered

Voeltz v. Obama (Florida 2012) ruling:“However, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that ‘[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States.‘Other courts that have considered the issue in the context of challenges to the qualifications of candidates for the office of President of the United States have come to the same conclusion."

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.… Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.”

Farrar (et al.) v. Obama (Georgia 2012) ruling:“In 2009, the Indiana Court of Appeals (“Indiana Court”) addressed facts and issues similar to those before this court.[Ankeny] v. Governor, 916 N.E.2d (Ind. Ct. App. 2009).… The Indiana Court rejected the argument that Mr. Obama was ineligible, stating that children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.… This Court finds the decision and analysis of [Ankeny] persuasive.”

And, on October 1 2012, the current US Supreme Court turned down an appeal of the last of the rulings shown above, the Farrar case, which had ruled that "children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents." By rejecting the appeal, the US Supreme Court allowed the ruling of the lower court to STAND. And what did the lower court rule? The same thing as Bingham and Meese and Senators Graham and Hatch and former senator Fred Thompson all have said, that every child born on US soil except for the children of foreign diplomats is a NATURAL BORN US CITIZEN.
Learn to Read

Indianapolis, IN

#173770 Oct 3, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>Did you say the same thing when Tip O'Neal shut down the government a dozen times when Reagan was president? It is O'Bummer Boy who will not negotiate even one iota whereas Bill Clinton negotiated with Newt Gingrich.
O'Bummer is a spoiled brat who demands he get his way.
Did Tip promise to shut down the Government when he was campaigning? I must have missed that.
Dale

Wichita, KS

#173771 Oct 3, 2013
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
The US Supreme Court is the official final authority on what the US Constitution means, and you are a nut. It is right, and you are wrong. Meese and the the Heritage Foundation are right, and you are wrong. Bingham is right, and you are wrong:
“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)”
The ten appeals courts that ruled on presidential eligibility, nine on Obama one on McCain, are all right, and you are wrong:
Here are some of them:
Hollander v. McCain (New Hampshire 2008) ruling:“Those born “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” U.S. Const., amend. XIV, have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since the time of the founding, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 674-75 (1898), and thus eligible for the presidency..."
Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana (Indiana 2008 – Appellate Court) ruling:“Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”
Tisdale v. Obama (Virginia federal court 2012) ruling:“It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered
Voeltz v. Obama (Florida 2012) ruling:“However, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that ‘[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States.‘Other courts that have considered the issue in the context of challenges to the qualifications of candidates for the office of President of the United States have come to the same conclusion."
Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.”
Farrar (et al.) v. Obama (Georgia 2012) ruling:“In 2009, the Indiana Court of Appeals (“Indiana Court”) addressed facts and issues similar to those before this court.[Ankeny] v. Governor, 916 N.E.2d (Ind. Ct. App. 2009).… The Indiana Court rejected the argument that Mr. Obama was ineligible, stating that children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.… This Court finds the decision and analysis of [Ankeny] persuasive.”
And, on October 1 2012, the current US Supreme Court turned down an appeal of the last of the rulings shown above, the Farrar case, which had ruled that "children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents." By rejecting the appeal, the US Supreme Court allowed the ruling of the lower court to STAND. And what did the lower court rule? The same thing as Bingham and Meese and Senators Graham and Hatch and former senator Fred Thompson all have said, that every child born on US soil except for the children of foreign diplomats is a NATURAL BORN US CITIZEN.
LMAO!!! Your first sentence is way off, the US Constitution has the final say.

ARTICLE III, section 2, US Constitution

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution.....

As you know we are a Constitutional Republic and the Constitution has full jurisdiction over all branches of the government and this include the USSC.

As I have stated many times, aliens have never been "and subject to the jurisdiction, thereof (US Constitution), this is only a condition that is enjoyed by a citizen.(see 14th amendment)

All you have done by posting those cases has done nothing more than prove that the courts are incompetent and violators of the Constitution.
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

#173772 Oct 3, 2013
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!! Your first sentence is way off, the US Constitution has the final say.
ARTICLE III, section 2, US Constitution
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution.....
As you know we are a Constitutional Republic and the Constitution has full jurisdiction over all branches of the government and this include the USSC.
As I have stated many times, aliens have never been "and subject to the jurisdiction, thereof (US Constitution), this is only a condition that is enjoyed by a citizen.(see 14th amendment)
All you have done by posting those cases has done nothing more than prove that the courts are incompetent and violators of the Constitution.
YOU are a nut. The courts are right, and you are wrong. Bingham is right and you are wrong. The Heritage Foundation book is right, and you are wrong, the members of the Electoral College (not one of whom changed her or his vote to vote against Obama either in the 2008 or 2012 elections) is right and you are wrong. The US Supreme Court is right, and you are wrong. The US Congress, which confirmed Obama's election unanimously both times, is right, and you are wrong. The Chief Justice of the USA, who swore Obama in several times after each election, is right, and you are wrong.

And, most importantly of all, you cannot read into the Constitution something that is not there, and there is not a single word in the Constitution (or for that matter in the writings of ANY of the members of the Constitutional Convention) that says that two citizen parents are required in order to be eligible to be president of the USA. Not a word.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#173773 Oct 3, 2013
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!!! Only the Constitution has the power to create a citizen, since that power was taken away from the States by the 14th amendment.
"The sole authority to naturalize persons as citizens of the United States is conferred upon the Attorney General."
8 USC § 1421 (a)

Authority is vested in a government which acts through its agents. The Constitution contains the law, but it does not perform any actions as it is a piece of paper, an inanimate object.

Dufus Dale suffers serious intellectual impairment.

wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
"The Congress shall have Power To ... establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization ...."
What part of "Congress shall have the power to" does Dufus Dale not understand?
<quoted text>

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#173774 Oct 3, 2013
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!!! Only the Constitution has the power to create a citizen, since that power was taken away from the States by the 14th amendment.
The Constitution creates neither natural born nor naturalized citizens.

Currently it it the US Attorney General who is vested with authority to naturalize persons per statute.

Natural born citizens are "created" by Nature, and the Founders recognized this principle derived from Natural Law as embodied in English Common Law.

The Constitution recognizes both citizens and persons but creates neither.
Tea Party Patriot

Midlothian, IL

#173775 Oct 3, 2013
Why is the pResident not giving us the name of the muslime woman who attacked washinton today?

Were is Obummer hiding during yet another massive terrorist attack on are country as he watches on HDTV screen as he plays golf?

Why is he covering up the name of the attacker?

Because he ordered it thats why.

Any one with a brane can figure out that the muslime woman terrorist attacker was none other than Huma Abedin, the secret wife of Benjamin Ghazi, known Omuslime Brotherhood leader and childhood friend of pResident Oscummer.

Stop the Ocrumbler conspiracy to took are gunz away as he shuts down goverment to prevent are troops from stopping the muslime invasion to abort the america babies.

DONT YOU TREADMILL ON ME!!!

Cruz/Palin 2016 for freedom americas.

Take are contry back.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#173776 Oct 3, 2013
Two points here. First is that the reason why it was given the name "Affordable Care Act" was to make people actually think it was affordable.
Next, the only person that thought Obamacare was better than the Afforable Care Act was Obama's Cousin Pookie.

Six of One - Obamacare vs. The Affordable Care Act
Tea Party Patriot

Midlothian, IL

#173778 Oct 3, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
Two points here. First is that the reason why it was given the name "Affordable Care Act" was to make people actually think it was affordable.
Next, the only person that thought Obamacare was better than the Afforable Care Act was Obama's Cousin Pookie.
Six of One - Obamacare vs. The Affordable Care Act
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =sx2scvIFGjEXX
Two points here.

First point is the horn on the LEFT side of Obummers black nazi socialist radical christian arab communist muslime devil head.

Second point is the horn on the RIGHT side of Obumms black nazi socialist radical christian arab communist muslime devil head.
Democracynow org

West Sayville, NY

#173779 Oct 3, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you say the same thing when Tip O'Neal shut down the government a dozen times when Reagan was president? It is O'Bummer Boy who will not negotiate even one iota whereas Bill Clinton negotiated with Newt Gingrich.
O'Bummer is a spoiled brat who demands he get his way.
Bill Clinton and all Newt Gingrich Rightwing Nuts destroyed average Americans with NAFTA & Terminating Glass/Steagall.

Yet you love Newt and hate Clinton.

Go Figure?

LOL

--------

Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999-Part 2
http://tinyurl.com/ccs348

Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999-Part 1
http://tinyurl.com/dfnkuu

Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999
Bill Clinton and the Republicans did away with oversight.
President Bill Clinton signed this into law with 54 Republicans voting yes and 44 Democrats voting no./ http://tinyurl.com/5lwv6z
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_ca...

On the Conference Report (S.900 Conference Report )
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_ca...

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#173780 Oct 3, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>Did you say the same thing when Tip O'Neal shut down the government a dozen times when Reagan was president? It is O'Bummer Boy who will not negotiate even one iota whereas Bill Clinton negotiated with Newt Gingrich.
O'Bummer is a spoiled brat who demands he get his way.
Learn to Read wrote:
<quoted text>
Did Tip promise to shut down the Government when he was campaigning? I must have missed that.
Did Speaker Bonehead? Waz da matta, cat got yo tongue.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#173781 Oct 3, 2013
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
The US Supreme Court is the official final authority on what the US Constitution means, and you are a nut. It is right, and you are wrong. Meese and the the Heritage Foundation are right, and you are wrong. Bingham is right, and you are wrong:
“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)”
The ten appeals courts that ruled on presidential eligibility, nine on Obama one on McCain, are all right, and you are wrong:
Here are some of them:
Hollander v. McCain (New Hampshire 2008) ruling:“Those born “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” U.S. Const., amend. XIV, have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since the time of the founding, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 674-75 (1898), and thus eligible for the presidency..."
Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana (Indiana 2008 – Appellate Court) ruling:“Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”
Tisdale v. Obama (Virginia federal court 2012) ruling:“It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered
Voeltz v. Obama (Florida 2012) ruling:“However, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that ‘[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States.‘Other courts that have considered the issue in the context of challenges to the qualifications of candidates for the office of President of the United States have come to the same conclusion."
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.… Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.”
Farrar (et al.) v. Obama (Georgia 2012) ruling:“In 2009, the Indiana Court of Appeals (“Indiana Court”) addressed facts and issues similar to those before this court.[Ankeny] v. Governor, 916 N.E.2d (Ind. Ct. App. 2009).… The Indiana Court rejected the argument that Mr. Obama was ineligible, stating that children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.… This Court finds the decision and analysis of [Ankeny] persuasive.”
And, on October 1 2012, the current US Supreme Court turned down an appeal of the last of the rulings shown above, the Farrar case, which had ruled that "children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents." By rejecting the appeal, the US Supreme Court allowed the ruling of the lower court to STAND. And what did the lower court rule? The same thing as Bingham and Meese and Senators Graham and Hatch and former senator Fred Thompson all have said, that every child born on US soil except for the children of foreign diplomats is a NATURAL BORN US CITIZEN.
And the Supreme Court was right about the Dred Scott Decision?

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#173784 Oct 3, 2013
Declaration of Independence.

Life, liberty, and the **pursuit of happiness**. Right from Natural Law.

Of course most birfoons have no clue where "pursuit of happiness" came from.

“[Per]plexed the law of nature with a multitude of abftracted rules and precepts,

referring merely to the fitnefs or unfitnefs of things, is fome have vainly furmifed;

but has gracioufly reduced the rule of obedience to this one paternal precept,“that man

fhould 'purfue his own happinefs.'”

-Sir William Blackstone

From his "Commentaries on the Laws of England."

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#173785 Oct 3, 2013
Democracynow org wrote:
<quoted text>
Bill Clinton and all Newt Gingrich Rightwing Nuts destroyed average Americans with NAFTA & Terminating Glass/Steagall.
Yet you love Newt and hate Clinton.
Go Figure?
LOL
Have you ever been to Loredo, TX in recent years? They have the biggest Walmart I have ever seen. It is like a regular Walmart and a Sam's stuck together and they have about a hundred check outs.
I have seen two Hispanic people checking out with three or four shopping carts and then go out into the parking lot and stuff every nook and cranny of their Mexican plated and head south.
NAFTA has opened up much of Mexico to American goods!!!

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#173786 Oct 3, 2013
wojar wrote:
Declaration of Independence.
Life, liberty, and the **pursuit of happiness**. Right from Natural Law.
Of course most birfoons have no clue where "pursuit of happiness" came from.
“[Per]plexed the law of nature with a multitude of abftracted rules and precepts,
referring merely to the fitnefs or unfitnefs of things, is fome have vainly furmifed;
but has gracioufly reduced the rule of obedience to this one paternal precept,“that man
fhould 'purfue his own happinefs.'”
-Sir William Blackstone
From his "Commentaries on the Laws of England."
But I do know that "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is not in our Constitution!

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) 19 min Cheech the Conser... 1,346,642
abby2-9-16 28 min RACE 4
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 30 min RACE 7,296
Dear Abby 2-6-16 1 hr Blunt Advice 6
last post wins! (Apr '13) 1 hr They cannot kill ... 605
last post wins! (Dec '10) 1 hr They cannot kill ... 1,578
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 1 hr Earthling-1 57,257
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages