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

There are 189824 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.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#174161 Oct 7, 2013
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>The Constitution is the Law of the Land, therefore it has jurisdiction over the federal government, all branches.
The Constitution makes reference to the jurisdiction of the United States, not the "jurisdiction of this constitution," whatever the F Dale thinks that means.

The jurisdiction of the United States is the power of the government of the United States to exercise its authority over its territories. That is how the term was understood by the founders and is understood by the courts and legal scholars today, Dufus Dale's fantasies notwithstanding.
Dufus Dale cannot rewrite history and redefine established legal definitions to suit his delusions.

Dufus Dale is not working with a full deck.
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry Dale, it is the federal government that has jurisdiction, the power to exercise federal authority over all persons and things within it's territories.

The United States of America has territory, not the Constitution. Duh!
And if the United States were to change its form of government to a pure internet-based democracy, it would still be the US government that exercises authority.

It is the branches of government which form the government that possesses jurisdiction.

In a case of Law of the Sea the question may arise "which country has jurisdiction"? For example the US or Canada. Only an idiot would say "da constitooshun!"

Dufus is not working with a full deck.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#174162 Oct 7, 2013
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Obama, having been born in the USA, in Hawaii (as his birth certificate and the confirmation of the officials of BOTH parties in Hawaii and the Index Data and the birth notices sent to the Hawaii newspapers in 1961 by the DOH of Hawaii all show) is a Natural Born US Citizen.
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>Constitutional Law doesn't change without an amendment and as it stand now, Jr. is just an alien.
I will get back to the libs tomorrow, been working on my mud machine this weekend. I see that would be page 7697.
Too bad constitutional law has never changed in order to conform to Dufus Dale's unique delusions. As it stands now, Dufus Dale is just a blithering idiot.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#174163 Oct 7, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
We are energy independent? We import about 40% of our crude oil!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/...
And how much of our gasoline do we export?

"U.S. exported more gasoline than imported last year"

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondea...

http://tinyurl.com/kced5rt

"Energy updates: Crude oil production and petroleum exports are surging, net imports are declining, and oil prices are stable"

http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/07/energy-updat...

http://tinyurl.com/med8j4x

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#174164 Oct 7, 2013
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!! Your dual-citizen would be below the level of a naturalized citizen, since they would carry two allegiances. This is why the constitution does not recognized a dual-citizenship status.
According to US law, a child born here owes one allegiance, to the United States. That's the law. It's not Dufus Dale's fantasy, but it is the law, which does not depend at all on Dufus Dales delusions.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#174165 Oct 7, 2013
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!! The 14th amendment makes only two types of citizens those that are without foreign attachments (NBC) and naturalized.
Now if you want a citizenship status called a dual-citizen, then you must get yourself an amendment.
A child born here of ordinary aliens has, according to US law, no foreign attachments.

Foreign law is null and void.

BTW, Dufus, from 1802 - 1855 children born of US parents abroad were aliens. Fact. But of course, all the courts and all legal scholars were unaware of Play Law so they were wrong.

Moron.
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#174166 Oct 7, 2013
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
See 14th Amendment. UR FOS.
"Subject to the jurisdiction, thereof" is precedent to born citizenship or naturalization in the country, not equivalent. Almost any fool can see that, except for the schizophrenic.
<quoted text>
Speaking of FOS, you're carrying around a load there, Twinkerbelle. Get mommie to puy a fresh diaper on ya. You're spooking the vultures.

Twinkerbelle wants us to think the founding fathers gave no thought of protecting the presidency from usurpers. Twinkerbelle thinks the founding fathers were too stupid to realize that by allowing anyone born on U.S. soil, to be considered an NBC, would be asinine. Twinkerbelle doesn't think the founding fathers had the foresight to protect its own government from our enemies! Twinkerbelle is flat out wrong. Isn't that correct, Twinkerbelle? LMAO! such a small child LMAO!

Tip for the mentally challenged; in order to be "natural born", one must come from two "natural borns". Tip 2; alone, one cannot produce a child. I threw tip 2 in just for ya, Twinkerbelle.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#174167 Oct 7, 2013
But Dufus Dale will insist that the 14th amendment changed the meaning of jurisdiction, even though a change in definition would require that the new definition be stated. And even though only a demented fool could ever believe in dufus Dales' fanciful concept of jurisdiction, which is a conflation of constitution, jurisdiction, and citizenship. It's the "I am the Walrus" theory of citizenship. So pathetic.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#174168 Oct 7, 2013
Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Speaking of FOS, you're carrying around a load there, Twinkerbelle. Get mommie to puy a fresh diaper on ya. You're spooking the vultures.
Twinkerbelle wants us to think the founding fathers gave no thought of protecting the presidency from usurpers. Twinkerbelle thinks the founding fathers were too stupid to realize that by allowing anyone born on U.S. soil, to be considered an NBC, would be asinine. Twinkerbelle doesn't think the founding fathers had the foresight to protect its own government from our enemies! Twinkerbelle is flat out wrong. Isn't that correct, Twinkerbelle? LMAO! such a small child LMAO!
Tip for the mentally challenged; in order to be "natural born", one must come from two "natural borns". Tip 2; alone, one cannot produce a child. I threw tip 2 in just for ya, Twinkerbelle.
Tip from James Madison: Play Justice LRS is FOS.

“It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.”–James Madison
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
See 14th Amendment. UR FOS.
"Subject to the jurisdiction, thereof" is precedent to born citizenship or naturalization in the country, not equivalent. Almost any fool can see that, except for the schizophrenic.
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#174169 Oct 7, 2013
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Tip from James Madison: Play Justice LRS is FOS.
“It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.”–James Madison
<quoted text>
And what year did Madison say that? Who was he talking to? Who was he talking about? Let's start with the year, shall we?

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#174170 Oct 7, 2013
Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Tip for the mentally challenged; in order to be "natural born", one must come from two "natural borns".
If that were true there would be almost no natural born citizens in the US.

Do the math, MORON. Anyone with a genealogy wherein one immigrant is an ancestor **somewhere** in the direct lineage, would not be natural born according to your fantasy delusion.

Gawd you're stupid. No country on earth ever had such a law.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#174171 Oct 7, 2013
Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Tip for the mentally challenged; in order to be "natural born", one must come from two "natural borns".
Thanks for explaining why none of the Founding Fathers' descendants could possibly be natural born citizens. Every last one of them was born a British or foreign subject.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#174172 Oct 7, 2013
Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
And what year did Madison say that? Who was he talking to? Who was he talking about? Let's start with the year, shall we?
If you think Madison was wrong, be my guest and make an ass out of yourself. You have the floor. I'll wipe it with your ass.
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Tip from James Madison: Play Justice LRS is FOS.
“It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.”–James Madison
<quoted text>

“On Deck”

Since: Aug 08

French Polynesia

#174173 Oct 7, 2013
Wojar,
The law is a trifle.
The longer this political logjam in Washington continues, the less respect people will have for the law.
Like it or lump it, that's the way it is.
I suggest they get their house in order, lickity split.

Hey, did you know that the FAA is in non-compliance with the Ciean Air Act?
Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#174174 Oct 7, 2013
loose cannon wrote:
Wojar,
The law is a trifle.
The longer this political logjam in Washington continues, the less respect people will have for the law.
Like it or lump it, that's the way it is.
I suggest they get their house in order, lickity split.
Hey, did you know that the FAA is in non-compliance with the Ciean Air Act?
Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
The problem is not that the law is a trifle but that some in power trifle with the law.
Frank

Spokane, WA

#174175 Oct 7, 2013
Linktv org wrote:
<quoted text>
The Health Care Law Guru vs. the Conservative who Inspired It
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/businessdesk/2013...
--------
People Want Full Medicare for All
by Ralph Nader / September 26, 2013 / http://tinyurl.com/kazjgbq
Freshman Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas), who somehow got through Princeton and Harvard Law School, is the best news the defaulting Democratic Party has had in years.
As the Texas bull in the Senate china shop, he has been making a majority of his Republican colleagues cringe with his bare-knuckle antics and language. His 21-hour talkathon on the Senate floor demanding the defunding of Obamacare made his Republican colleagues cringe. His Nazi appeasement analogies and threats to shut down were especially embarrassing
After listening to his lengthy rant on the Senate Floor on Tuesday and Wednesday, one comes away with two distinct impressions. Ted Cruz cannot resist inserting himself here, there and everywhere. And nothing is too trivial for Senator Talkathon. He likes White Castle hamburgers, he loves pancakes; he talked about what he liked to read as a little boy, where he’s traveled, what clothes he wears and other trivia.
You’d think he would have used his time to talk specifically about the suffering that uninsured people and their children are going through, especially in the Lone Star State. Or about what could replace Obamacare other than his repeated “free market” solution, which is to say the “pay or die” profiteering, tax-subsidized corporate system.
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/09/26-1...
After ObamaKare is completely installed and Obama is no longer in office and we are trillions of dollars into it, we will still need health care reform.
Frank

Spokane, WA

#174176 Oct 7, 2013
Linktv org wrote:
<quoted text>
Barack 'BUSH' Obama destroyed Liberalism because he continued over 90% of all Bush/Cheney failed policy.
==========
FDA Policy: Big Pharma Firms Pay to Play
'Instead of protecting the public health, the FDA has been allowing the drug companies to pay for a seat at a small table where all the rules were written.'
October 7, 2013 / http://tinyurl.com/nyayytn
Major pharmaceutical companies are engaging in "pay to play" arrangements that allow them to shape public policy on painkiller testing rules and regulations, according to e-mails obtained by a public records request.
The Washington Post reports:
A scientific panel that shaped the federal government’s policy for testing the safety and effectiveness of painkillers was funded by major pharmaceutical companies that paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for the chance to affect the thinking of the Food and Drug Administration, according to hundreds of e-mails obtained by a public records request.
The e-mails show that the companies paid as much as $25,000 to attend any given meeting of the panel, which had been set up by two academics to provide advice to the FDA on how to weigh the evidence from clinical trials. A leading FDA official later called the group “an essential collaborative effort.”
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/10/...
ObamaKare adversely effect over 200 million United States citizens that already had health insurance. Obama lied when he said that ever one would be able to keep their insurance, that every one would be able to keep their doctor, that every one would save $2500 a year on insurance costs. Obama lies every day,and the more he lies the more the Liberals love him. Today he claimed that he was always willing to compromise with Republicans even though he has been against even listening to any Republican point of few his entire political career and in fact stated fatalistically just a few days ago that he would never listen to any Republican or compromise on any issue. Obama would rather let every citizen starve than listen to a Republican.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#174178 Oct 7, 2013
Frank wrote:
<quoted text>After ObamaKare is completely installed and Obama is no longer in office and we are trillions of dollars into it, we will still need health care reform.
That's not what the Heritage Foundation said when they originally proposed the individual mandate. It would save money under Republicans and cost under Democrats?

UR FOS Frank.
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#174179 Oct 7, 2013
Twinkerbelle....the only thing you can wipe a floor with is your tongue. manboy

In Section 212 of de Vattel’s treatise, he states the following:


§ 212. Of the citizens and natives.“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”

Like the honorable Justice Dale has been telling you.....Obobblehead was a brit from day one. Suck on it, kid! LMAO!

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#174180 Oct 7, 2013
WelbyMD wrote:
<quoted text>Parental birthplaces and their childhood citizenship means nothing. The definition of "natural-born" in our Constitution is born to parents who are BOTH U.S. citizens at the time of their child's birth ON U.S. soil.
Sorry, that has never been the law in this country.

Never happened. Not since day 1 of the republic.

Judge Lewis Sanford, Lynch v. Clarke 1844
Benny v. O'Brien, 32 Atl 696 (1895).
US v. Ark, 1898
Look Tin Sing,

and on and on and on.

Simple fact is children born in the US of immigrants who were never naturalized were ALWAYS considered natural born citizens.

That's an historical fact.

“Facts trump speculation”

Since: Dec 08

Bristol, CT

#174182 Oct 7, 2013
Justice LRS wrote:
Twinkerbelle....the only thing you can wipe a floor with is your tongue. manboy
In Section 212 of de Vattel’s treatise, he states the following:
§ 212. Of the citizens and natives.“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.
Sorry, but de Vattel's theory was not law in the US (nor was it a standard even as late as 1898).

Indeed, Vattel stated that "whether children born of citizens in a foreign country, are citizens, that the laws have decided the question in several countries, and it is necessary to follow their regulations."

Duh!

Furthermore, Vattel's law requires that the citizenship of the child follows that of the father. If that were the law in the US children of foreign parents would not only be deprived of natural born status THEY WOULD BE ALIENS. That has never been the law practiced in this country.

MORON.

“Is not the child born in this country of German parents a citizen? I am afraid we have got very few citizens in some of the counties of good old Pennsylvania if the children born of German parents are not citizens.”-Senator Lyman Trumbull, Cong. Globe 39th, 1st Sess 498 (1866).

Get real. MORON.

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) 36 min Yeah 1,232,567
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 2 hr Net Workit 5,997
News 17 shot-2 fatally-in bloody start to Memorial D... 2 hr BLDM 2
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 3 hr OzRitz 53,486
News Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 4 hr Ratloder 70,018
Amy 5-24-15 5 hr tiredofit 4
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 8 hr Go Blue Forever 99,534
More from around the web

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]