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

#173753 Oct 3, 2013
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!! That is just your feeble thinking, remember you're just an uninformed tool.
So you've found someone to adopt your delusion?
Dale

Wichita, KS

#173754 Oct 3, 2013
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
You're kidding of course. A rock star comes to the USA and has a tour in which he makes $10 million. She or he is required to pay tax on the $10 million, of course. A foreigner in the USA purchases a lottery ticket that wins $200 million. She or he is required to pay federal and state income taxes on the $200 million, of course.
However, for most income the USA has a rule that it calls "tax residency" meaning that while the USA has the power to tax everyone, it decides not to tax foreigners who have not resided in the USA for less than a specified time.
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/visa-g...
Everyone in the USA except for foreign diplomats is subject to the USA tax laws, an example of being subject to the jurisdiction.
You cannot read into the Constitution something that is not there. And there isn't a single word IN the Constitution that bars the US-born children of foreigners or dual citizens from becoming president. And, as noted earlier, Bingham also said:
“Who does not know that every person born within the limits of the Republic is, in the language of the Constitution, a natural-born citizen.” Rep. Bingham, The congressional globe, Volume 61, Part 2. pg. 2212 (1869)”
LMAO!!!

Ellen wrote:
"You cannot read into the Constitution something that is not there. And there isn't a single word IN the Constitution that bars the US-born children of foreigners or dual citizens from becoming president."

If it isn't there then it can't be Constitutional law and as you know the Constitution makes the citizens.(see 14th amendment)
Dale

Wichita, KS

#173755 Oct 3, 2013
Learn to Read wrote:
<quoted text>
Most recent. Contrast that with current.
LMAO!!! Oh, I see. The one that started after Labor Day.
Have you noticed how much of the government has been shut down?
Dale

Wichita, KS

#173756 Oct 3, 2013
Learn to Read wrote:
<quoted text>
So you've found someone to adopt your delusion?
LMAO!! You the uninformed tool calling me, delusional! Hahahaha!!
Dale

Wichita, KS

#173757 Oct 3, 2013
Learn to Read wrote:
<quoted text>
So you've found someone to adopt your delusion?
LMAO!! Keep flapping those lips, we need about two inches of rain.
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

#173758 Oct 3, 2013
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!!
Ellen wrote:
"You cannot read into the Constitution something that is not there. And there isn't a single word IN the Constitution that bars the US-born children of foreigners or dual citizens from becoming president."
If it isn't there then it can't be Constitutional law and as you know the Constitution makes the citizens.(see 14th amendment)
Precisely.

You cannot read into the Constitution something that is not there. And there isn't a single word IN the Constitution that bars the US-born children of foreigners or dual citizens from becoming president. And, as noted earlier, Bingham also said:

“Who does not know that every person born within the limits of the Republic is, in the language of the Constitution, a natural-born citizen.” Rep. Bingham, The congressional globe, Volume 61, Part 2. pg. 2212 (1869)”

Are you saying that Bingham was wrong?

“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are "natural born citizens" and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are "natural born citizens" eligible to serve as President ..."---- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005)[Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.

Are you saying that both Bingham and the Heritage Foundation book are wrong?

In fact, since that is also the way that the US Supreme Court ruled in the Wong Kim Ark case (which, BTW, was AFTER Minor v. Happersett), are you saying that the US Supreme Court is wrong?
Learn to Read

Indianapolis, IN

#173759 Oct 3, 2013
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!! Oh, I see. The one that started after Labor Day.
Have you noticed how much of the government has been shut down?
Oh, I see. You failed TOEFL.
Learn to Read

Indianapolis, IN

#173760 Oct 3, 2013
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!! Keep flapping those lips, we need about two inches of rain.
That explains your repetitive dance moves
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

#173761 Oct 3, 2013
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!!
Ellen wrote:
"You cannot read into the Constitution something that is not there. And there isn't a single word IN the Constitution that bars the US-born children of foreigners or dual citizens from becoming president."
If it isn't there then it can't be Constitutional law and as you know the Constitution makes the citizens.(see 14th amendment)
Indeed, you cannot read into the Constitution something that is not there. And there isn't a single word IN the Constitution that bars the US-born children of foreigners or dual citizens from becoming president. And, as noted earlier, Bingham also said:

“Who does not know that every person born within the limits of the Republic is, in the language of the Constitution, a natural-born citizen.” Rep. Bingham, The congressional globe, Volume 61, Part 2. pg. 2212 (1869)”

Are you saying that Bingham was wrong?

“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are "natural born citizens" and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are "natural born citizens" eligible to serve as President ..."---- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005)[Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.

Are you saying that both Bingham and the Heritage Foundation book are wrong?

In fact, since that is also the way that the US Supreme Court ruled in the Wong Kim Ark case (which, BTW, was AFTER Minor v. Happersett), are you saying that the US Supreme Court is wrong?
Dale

Wichita, KS

#173762 Oct 3, 2013
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Precisely.
You cannot read into the Constitution something that is not there. And there isn't a single word IN the Constitution that bars the US-born children of foreigners or dual citizens from becoming president. And, as noted earlier, Bingham also said:
“Who does not know that every person born within the limits of the Republic is, in the language of the Constitution, a natural-born citizen.” Rep. Bingham, The congressional globe, Volume 61, Part 2. pg. 2212 (1869)”
Are you saying that Bingham was wrong?
“Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are "natural born citizens" and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are "natural born citizens" eligible to serve as President ..."---- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005)[Edwin Meese was Ronald Reagan’s attorney general, and the Heritage Foundation is a well-known Conservative organization.
Are you saying that both Bingham and the Heritage Foundation book are wrong?
In fact, since that is also the way that the US Supreme Court ruled in the Wong Kim Ark case (which, BTW, was AFTER Minor v. Happersett), are you saying that the US Supreme Court is wrong?
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.
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

RationalState

#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

RationalState

#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>

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
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 3 min Morse 1,141,701
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 19 min mdbuilder 48,414
EverGreen Belgrade 3 hr voivoda_stjepan_k... 4
mtn cheat 4 hr mtn 1
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 7 hr KiMerde 51,241
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 10 hr j_m_w 98,669
romance 10 hr Yunkee 1
Chicago Dating
Find my Match

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 ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 1:30 pm PST

NFL 1:30PM
Colt McCoy 'pushing' Robert Griffin III, Gruden says
Bleacher Report 4:00 AM
Colts' Week 12 Preview vs. Jags
NBC Sports 9:51 AM
Colts cut return man Griff Whalen, sign RB Zurlon Tipton
NFL10:14 AM
Colts promote Zurlon Tipton, waive Griff Whalen
NBC Sports 4:12 PM
Week 12 skill-position injury report — final