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
153,201 - 153,220 of 176,779 Comments Last updated 30 min ago
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#173758
Oct 3, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#173759
Oct 3, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#173760
Oct 3, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#173761
Oct 3, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#173762
Oct 3, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#173763
Oct 3, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#173765
Oct 3, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#173766
Oct 3, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#173767
Oct 3, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#173768
Oct 3, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#173769
Oct 3, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#173770
Oct 3, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#173771
Oct 3, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#173772
Oct 3, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#173773
Oct 3, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

RationalState

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#173774
Oct 3, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#173775
Oct 3, 2013
 

Judged:

2

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#173776
Oct 3, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#173778
Oct 3, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#173779
Oct 3, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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...

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

Other Recent Chicago Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 2 min forks_make_us_fat 1,095,927
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 3 min beyond the grave 97,818
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 32 min Doug77 4,636
last post wins! (Apr '13) 48 min Concerned_American 320
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 1 hr bushi 49,259
Last word + 2 (Mar '12) 1 hr andet1987 555
Word (Dec '08) 1 hr andet1987 4,630

Search the Chicago Forum:
•••
•••

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 ]
•••