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

There are 20 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.

Democracynow org

West Sayville, NY

#174233 Oct 8, 2013
Obskeptic wrote:
<quoted text>
Those would be the same intelligence agencies that assured us that Sadaam Hussein had chemical weapons, and was trying to develop his nuclear program again, correct? Thats before we even bring up all the clarion calls by democrats in the senate and house during the Clinton regime that confirmed the same things, and was asking for UN resolution after UN resolution to authorize stricter sanctions on Iraq, at the same time they were claiming regime change in Iraq would be a positive objective. I appreciate your cut and paste expertise, but your one sided, partisan narrative makes you look like a total ass!
The CIA proved Bush and Cheney lied about WMD in Iraq.

Stop trying to rewrite history.

----------

Paul Pillar served for 30 years as an analyst at the CIA, finishing his career as the national intelligence officer for the Near East and South Asia.
Question: At least the way the story is told by [journalist] Bob Woodward, is that even then the president is asking Rumsfeld to begin war plans.[Counterterrorism expert] Richard Clarke reports that [there is] lots of conversation about "Let's get ready." That's the fall [of 2001]. You're the Middle East guy for the Central Intelligence Agency, and you're not receiving any formal requests, any requests for information, any intelligence requests?...
Pillar
I did not receive any requests from a policy-maker on Iraq until about a year into the war. Now, this is to be distinguished from our military, which was doing a lot of the planning work and making many, many requests, usually at other levels, but some of my colleagues in the National Intelligence Council were involved in supporting the military planning. But no, I did not.
Q
A year into the war meaning when?

Pillar
Meaning close to mid-2004.... Remember, things like the infamous National Intelligence Estimate [NIE] on weapons of mass destruction, which was published in the fall of 2002, that was not requested by the administration; that was requested by Congress.

Q
Wait a minute. The Bush administration, the vice president, president, did not ever ask the Central Intelligence Agency for an intelligence assessment?

Pillar
I want to be precise. From my seat on the National Intelligence Council,... not just the CIA but the entire intelligence community,... no, I did not receive any request on Iraq.... There were other requests being made, from DIA to CIA, particularly by the military as they faced their very awesome job of planning.
Q
But not the vice president?
Pillar
No, sir.
Q
Not the president? Not the national security adviser?
Pillar
The course had already been set.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darks...
Democracynow org

West Sayville, NY

#174234 Oct 8, 2013
Obskeptic wrote:
<quoted text>
Those would be the same intelligence agencies that assured us that Sadaam Hussein had chemical weapons, and was trying to develop his nuclear program again, correct? Thats before we even bring up all the clarion calls by democrats in the senate and house during the Clinton regime that confirmed the same things, and was asking for UN resolution after UN resolution to authorize stricter sanctions on Iraq, at the same time they were claiming regime change in Iraq would be a positive objective. I appreciate your cut and paste expertise, but your one sided, partisan narrative makes you look like a total ass!
A Spy Speaks Out
Former Top CIA Official Tyler Drumheller On "Faulty" Intelligence Claims /
http://tinyurl.com/rle4x / April 23, 2006
"The policy was set. The war in Iraq was coming and they were looking for intelligence to fit into the policy."
Tyler Drumheller CIA Ret.

(CBS) When no weapons of mass destruction surfaced in Iraq, President Bush insisted that all those WMD claims before the war were the result of faulty intelligence. But a former top CIA official, Tyler Drumheller — a 26-year veteran of the agency — has decided to do something CIA officials at his level almost never do: Speak out.

He tells correspondent Ed Bradley the real failure was not in the intelligence community but in the White House. He says he saw how the Bush administration, time and again, welcomed intelligence that fit the president's determination to go to war and turned a blind eye to intelligence that did not.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/21/60m...

------

Ex-CIA Official Paul Pillar Faults Use of Data on Iraq
Intelligence 'Misused' to Justify War, He Says
February 10, 2006 / http://tinyurl.com/azl6w
The former CIA official who coordinated U.S. intelligence on the Middle East until last year has accused the Bush administration of "cherry-picking" intelligence on Iraq to justify a decision it had already reached to go to war, and of ignoring warnings that the country could easily fall into violence and chaos after an invasion to overthrow Saddam Hussein.

Paul R Pillar's critique is one of the most severe indictments of White House actions by a former Bush official since Richard C. Clarke, a former National Security Council staff member, went public with his criticism of the administration's handling of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and its failure to deal with the terrorist threat beforehand.

It is also the first time that such a senior intelligence officer has so directly and publicly condemned the administration's handling of intelligence.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/...

1948 Smith-Mundt Act The 1948 Smith-Mundt Act prohibited the domestic dissemination of United States government propaganda. The reasoning behind Smith-Mundt was that Congress wanted to be certain that a United States government agency could not brainwash our own citizens as Hitler had done in Germany.
Democracynow org

West Sayville, NY

#174235 Oct 8, 2013
General Anthony Zinni, USMC,(Ret.) Remarks at CDI Board of Directors Dinner, May 12, 2004

I think the first mistake that was made was misjudging the success of containment. I heard the president say, not too long ago, I believe it was with the interview with Tim Russert that ... I'm not sure ... but at some point I heard him say that "containment did not work." That's not true.

So to say containment didn't work, I think is not only wrong from the experiences we had then, but the proof is in the pudding, in what kind of military our troops faced when we went in there.

The third mistake, I think was one we repeated from Vietnam, we had to create a false rationale for going in to get public support. The books were cooked, in my mind. The intelligence was not there. I testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee one month before the war, and Senator Lugar asked me: "General Zinni, do you feel the threat from Saddam Hussein is imminent?" I said: "No, not at all. It was not an imminent threat. Not even close. Not grave, gathering, imminent, serious, severe, mildly upsetting, none of those."
http://www.juancole.com/2004/05/zinni-on-what...

-----

Gen. Anthony Zinni, USMC,(Ret.) Remarks at CDI Board of Directors Dinner, May 12, 2004 /
The sixth mistake, and maybe the biggest one, was propping up and trusting the exiles, the infamous "Gucci Guerillas" from London. We bought into their intelligence reports. To the credit of the CIA, they didn't buy into it, so I guess the Defense Department created its own boutique intelligence agency to vet them. And we ended up with a group that fed us bad information. That led us to believe that we would be welcomed with flowers in the streets; that led us to believe that this would be a cakewalk.

When I testified before Congress in 1998, after a grilling from Senator McCain and all those wonderful senators supported the Iraqi Liberation Act, and I told them that these guys are not credible and they are going to lead us into something they we will regret. At that time, they were pushing a plan that Central Command would supply air support and special forces, and we would put it into Iraq, and they would pied piper their way up to Baghdad and the whole place would fall apart. This plan was created by two senate staffers and a retired General. I happened to be the commander of central command, nobody bothered to ask me about how my troops would be used. And they were a little bit upset about me being upset about this.
These exiles did not have credibility inside the country or in the region. Not only did they not have credibility, it was clear that the information they were providing us many times was not correct and accurate. We believed in them. We also brought them in with us and deemed them into the governing council and the reception by Iraqis has been, to say the least, has not been great.
http://www.juancole.com/2004/05/zinni-on-what...
Democracynow org

West Sayville, NY

#174237 Oct 8, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
And how many miss leads did Obummer Boy miss on Ben Ghazi? Oh, I know, you think Ben Ghazi is a Hindu taxi driver in New York City!!!
Oh, you do know the suicide pilots of 9/11/2001 did not use bombs, don't you? And you do know that Bush has not been our president for almost five years now, don't you?
Bush and Cheney let over 3,000 Americans die on September 11, 2001 and lied about WMD in Iraq.

Look in the mirror before you accuse Obama for Benghazi.

========

Why Iraq Was a Mistake
By Lt. General GREGORY NEWBOLD, Retired
http://tinyurl.com/p4j93 Apr. 09, 2006
From 2000 until October 2002, I was a Marine Corps lieutenant general and director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff. After 9/11, I was a witness and therefore a party to the actions that led us to the invasion of Iraq--an unnecessary war.

Inside the military family, I made no secret of my view that the zealots' rationale for war made no sense. And I think I was outspoken enough to make those senior to me uncomfortable.

But I now regret that I did not more openly challenge those who were determined to invade a country whose actions were peripheral to the real threat--al-Qaeda.

I retired from the military four months before the invasion, in part because of my opposition to those who had used 9/11's tragedy to hijack our security policy. Until now, I have resisted speaking out in public. I've been silent long enough.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9...

=========

General Eaton's Letter to President Bush on Veto
May 1, 2007 / http://tinyurl.com/mx9nm4o
Dear Mr. President,
Today, in your veto message regarding the bipartisan legislation just passed on Operation Iraqi Freedom, you asserted that you so decided because you listen to your commanders on the ground.
Respectfully, as your former commander on the ground, your administration did not listen to our best advice. In fact, a number of my fellow Generals were forced out of their jobs, because they did not tell you what you wanted to hear -- most notably General Eric Shinseki, whose foresight regarding troop levels was advice you rejected, at our troops' peril.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/05/01/3298...

-------

America's Angriest General John Batiste
May 9, 2007 / http://tinyurl.com/maw5r26
Retired two-star Army Gen. John Batiste is lashing out at the Bush war in Iraq in ads targeting key Republicans up for re-election in 2008. His offensive may change the rules regarding civilian-military relations.

"Mr. President, you did not listen," he says. "You continue to pursue a failed strategy that is breaking our Army and Marine Corps."
The ad is scheduled to air from May 10 to 18, targeting Republican Sens. Susan Collins (Maine), John Sununu (New Hampshire), John Warner (Virginia) and Norm Coleman (Minnesota), and 10 GOP House members, including Mary Bono, Phil English, Randy Kuhl, Jim Walsh and Heather Wilson.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2007/05...
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

#174238 Oct 8, 2013
Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
Tantrums? That's your dept. Twinkerbelle. Still waiting on your answer as to why the U.S. would deem the child of two aliens, an NBC. Are you so inexplicably dense that you cannot see the major flaw in that method? Ignorant bonehead.
Although the question is not addressed to me, I will answer. The reason that the USA deems the child of two aliens (and one alien) to be a Natural Born Citizen is simple. It is:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that ALL men are created equal..."

That being the case, the US-born child of two (or one) foreigner is just as able to become president as the US-born child of US citizens. And, if the writers of the US Constitution had intended to make an exception to the principle that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal...", they would have told us---and they didn't.

In addition, strict construction judicial interpretation requires that something be specifically stated in the US Constitution to be interpreted as what the US Constitution means, and it never specifically says that two citizen parents (or even one) is required in order to be eligible to become president. And, under Libertarian principles, it is not allowed to take away a right or a privilege unless the Constitution specifically enables that taking away, and the US Constitution never says that it is taking away the right or privilege of the US-born children of foreigners to become president.

So, under the principles of the Declaration of Independence, and Libertarian principles, and strict construction judicial interpretation, the US-born children of foreigners are just as able as the US-born children of US citizens to become president.
Democracynow org

West Sayville, NY

#174239 Oct 8, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
And how many miss leads did Obummer Boy miss on Ben Ghazi? Oh, I know, you think Ben Ghazi is a Hindu taxi driver in New York City!!!
Oh, you do know the suicide pilots of 9/11/2001 did not use bombs, don't you? And you do know that Bush has not been our president for almost five years now, don't you?
General Zinni They Screwed Up
http://tinyurl.com/yr2bq May 21, 2004
(CBS) Retired General Anthony Zinni is one of the most respected and outspoken military leaders of the past two decades.

From 1997 to 2000, he was commander-in-chief of the United States Central Command, in charge of all American troops in the Middle East. That was the same job held by Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf before him, and Gen. Tommy Franks after.

But Zinni broke ranks with the administration over the war in Iraq, and now, in his harshest criticism yet, he says senior officials at the Pentagon are guilty of dereliction of duty -- and that the time has come for heads to roll.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/21/60m...

---------

THE VIEW FROM CENTCOM....So what do former CENTCOM commanders think about the neocons and their war planning? Let's listen in:
http://tinyurl.com/2rh9c / May 21, 2004

General Joseph Hoar, 1991-1994: "Paul Wolfowitz is a very bright guy, but he doesn't know anything about war-fighting, and I suspect he knows less about counterinsurgency operations....I think that the neo-conservatives had their day, by selling to the President the need for invasion of Iraq. I think it's now time for a clean sweep—and it has been for some time, in my judgment—to get rid of these people."

General Anthony Zinni, 1997-2000: He believes the neocons, including Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith, the undersecretary of defense, have hijacked U.S. foreign policy: "In the lead-up to the Iraq war and its later conduct, I saw, at minimum, true dereliction, negligence and irresponsibility; at worst, lying, incompetence and corruption."

General Tommy Franks, 2000-2003: Doug Feith is "the fucking stupidest guy on the face of the earth."
General Binford Peay III, CENTCOM commander from 1994-1997, seems to have maintained a studious silence about the conduct of the war, perhaps understandable since he's now the chairman of the board of a defense contractor that, among other things, provides ammunition for the Army's Stryker brigades.

Still, that's a pretty remarkable record, isn't it? Three of the past four CENTCOM commanders, the guys who probably understand the military requirements of a war in the Middle East better than any other humans on the planet, think the people who planned this war are completely incompetent. Quite an accomplishment.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/ind...
Democracynow org

West Sayville, NY

#174240 Oct 8, 2013
Obskeptic wrote:
<quoted text>
How much is the democrat party and the Oblamer administration paying you for your cut and paste, partisan bullshit narrative? Try being objective and you may actually get some respect. Until then, your the charlatan.
INTERVIEW: GENERAL JOSEPH P. HOAR
http://tinyurl.com/yqyep May 21, 2004
`The Neo-Cons Have Had Their Day;
Now It's Time for a Clean Sweep'
Gen. Joseph P. Hoar (USMC-ret.), a four-star general, was Commander in Chief, U.S. Central Command (1991-94), commanding the U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf after the 1991 war. He also served in the Vietnam War, as a battalion and brigade advisor with the Vietnamese Marines. He was interviewed by Jeffrey Steinberg on May 6, 2004.
http://www.larouchepub.com/other/interviews/2...
Learn to Read

Indianapolis, IN

#174241 Oct 8, 2013
Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>Tantrums? That's your dept. Twinkerbelle. Still waiting on your answer as to why the U.S. would deem the child of two aliens, an NBC. Are you so inexplicably dense that you cannot see the major flaw in that method? Ignorant bonehead.
Romper knows better than the Founding Fathers. Especially that dunce Madison - what a bonehead that guy was.

Thank goodness they stuck in that provision subjecting the application of all portions of the Constitution to Play Law review and approval - just think where we'd be if we didn't allow Romper and Dufus ultimate veto power
Democracynow org

West Sayville, NY

#174242 Oct 8, 2013
Obskeptic wrote:
<quoted text>
Those would be the same intelligence agencies that assured us that Sadaam Hussein had chemical weapons, and was trying to develop his nuclear program again, correct? Thats before we even bring up all the clarion calls by democrats in the senate and house during the Clinton regime that confirmed the same things, and was asking for UN resolution after UN resolution to authorize stricter sanctions on Iraq, at the same time they were claiming regime change in Iraq would be a positive objective. I appreciate your cut and paste expertise, but your one sided, partisan narrative makes you look like a total ass!
Calling Marine Major Ritter
Like it or not, Marine Major Scott Ritter had it right all along.
By Colonel David Hackworth / http://tinyurl.com/zu8o7 / 02/10/2004
Ritter, the United Nations' chief weapons inspector in Iraq until 1998, took us all on – virtually alone, against incredible odds – stating, "Iraq is not a threat to the U.S." and begging the American people to take charge and not "sit back and allow your government to go to war against Iraq ...[without all] the facts on the table to back this war up."

As per his reputation on training fields and battlefields, this granite-jawed former Marine stood his ground and never flinched. He reminds me of another two-fisted, tell-it-like-it-is Marine, Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler, the recipient of two Medals of Honor, who was almost drummed out of the Marine Corps twice: Once in the 1930s for calling Benito Mussolini a "fascist," and once again a few years later when he rattled the military-industrial complex by daring to declare that "War is a racket."

Ritter, too, took serious punishment from his critics – and instead of doing proper due diligence or asking hard questions, the media quickly piled on. It was not Fox's finest hour when that network gleefully painted him as a 21st-century Benedict Arnold – not that he had many primetime advocates anywhere else. Even CNN's usually evenhanded Paula Zahn said to Ritter six months before America unleashed its miscalculated military solution on Iraq, "People out there are accusing you of drinking Saddam Hussein's Kool-Aid." http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp...

-------

Understanding the Roots of Terrorism: Iraq as a Case Study.
No WMD’s In Iraq: by Marine Major Scott Ritter
November 13, 2002 / Audio
http://sass.caltech.edu/ritter/SASS-Keynote.m...

------

Doug Feith Cooked The Books For Bush Audio
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/downloads/a...
Democracynow org

West Sayville, NY

#174243 Oct 8, 2013
CIA Learned in '02 That Bin Laden Had No Iraq Ties, Report Says
http://tinyurl.com/jkmzo / September 15, 2006
The CIA learned in late September 2002 from a high-level member of Saddam Hussein's inner circle that Iraq had no past or present contact with Osama bin Laden and that the Iraqi leader considered bin Laden an enemy of the Baghdad regime, according to a recent Senate Intelligence Committee report.
Although President Bush and other senior administration officials were at that time regularly linking Hussein to al-Qaeda, the CIA's highly sensitive intelligence supporting the contrary view was apparently not passed on to the White House or senior Bush policymakers.
Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) and two GOP colleagues on the committee disclosed this information for the first time in the panel's report on Iraq released last week. They wrote in the "additional views" section of the report that the Cabinet-level Iraqi official "said that Iraq has no past, current, or anticipated future contact with Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda" and that the official "added that bin Laden was in fact a longtime enemy of Iraq."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/...
Dale

Wichita, KS

#174245 Oct 8, 2013
Newport Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
We don't go by the rules of other nations, we don't go by accepted practices, we don't go by the Federalist papers, we go by the Constitution period.
Under the Constitution of the United States he is a US citizen.
Having been born a citizen of this country, the 14th Amendment makes him a "Natural citizen" and entitled to run for President.
LMAO!!! Obama was born a citizen of his father's country, this made him ineligible for citizenship, he wasn't "and subject to the jurisdiction, thereof", since he is an alien.

"Rules of other Nations", let's see what Wang Kim Ark v. US had to say in paragraph 34 about that.

"Nor can it be doubted that it is the inherent right of every independent nation to determine for itself, and according to its own constitution and laws, what classes of persons shall be entitled to its citizenship."
Dale

Wichita, KS

#174246 Oct 8, 2013
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
And there isn't a Dale without a Dufus. Every sovereign nation has its jurisdiction, regardless of the name of the country or the form of government.
Grow up.
<quoted text>
LMAO!!! and the "Supreme Law of the Land" has its jurisdiction and it is over the US government, including all branches, thereof.
Dale

Wichita, KS

#174247 Oct 8, 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>
LMAO!! Sorry, aliens have never been "and subject to the jurisdiction, thereof". If they were they would be called citizens and the naturalization process wouldn't be necessary.
Dale

Wichita, KS

#174248 Oct 8, 2013
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Aliens must be subject to the jurisdiction thereof otherwise they cannot be naturalized in the United States per statute (statute that they MUST BE SUBJECT TO), a condition precedent to citizenship.(See 14th amendment.)
Duh!
RU really that stupid and demented?
LMAO!!! Aliens are subject to their country of origin (citizens) until they are naturalized into the US, then they are "subject to the jurisdiction, thereof" (US Constitution).
Dale

Wichita, KS

#174249 Oct 8, 2013
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
<quoted text>
LMAO!!! The Constitution has jurisdiction of the US government and all branches, thereof.(see US Constitution)
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

#174250 Oct 8, 2013
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!! Obama was born a citizen of his father's country, this made him ineligible for citizenship, he wasn't "and subject to the jurisdiction, thereof", since he is an alien.
"Rules of other Nations", let's see what Wang Kim Ark v. US had to say in paragraph 34 about that.
"Nor can it be doubted that it is the inherent right of every independent nation to determine for itself, and according to its own constitution and laws, what classes of persons shall be entitled to its citizenship."
Re: ""Nor can it be doubted that it is the inherent right of every independent nation to determine for itself, and according to its own constitution and laws, what classes of persons shall be entitled to its citizenship."

Answer. That is exactly right. The USA has determined, as an independent nation, that every child born on its soil, regardless of whether the father was a foreigner at the time, regardless of whether the father AND the mother were foreigners at the time, regardless of whether the child is a dual citizen at birth, regardless of whether the child is a dual citizen when elected president (like James Madison, who was made a full voting citizen of France), is a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.

If the writers of the US Constitution had intended to exclude the US-born children of foreigners from becoming president, they would have said so---and they didn't. If the writers of the US Constitution had intended to exclude dual citizens from becoming president, they would have said so---and they didn't.

You cannot write into the Constitution something that it does not say. And the US Constitution DOES NOT SAY that the US-born children of foreigners are not eligible to become president. And it does not say that dual citizens are not eligible to become president.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..." That means that unless the writers of the US Constitution specifically said that there was an exception to the rule that all men are created equal, that the US-born children of foreigners are just as equal as the US-born children of US citizens, just as eligible to become president. And there is nothing in the Constitution, or in the Federalist Papers, or in ANY of the writings of the members of the US Constitutional Convention that said that the US-born children of foreigners should be lower class citizens, people who should be distrusted, people who are not eligible to become president. IF they had thought that, they would have said so, AND THEY NEVER SAID SO.

"Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity."---William Rawle, A VIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 2d ed.(1829)

“What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.”(Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)--Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT).
Dale

Wichita, KS

#174251 Oct 8, 2013
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
LMAO!!! Looks like that left Obama out, he was born into the allegiance of his father's country.

Wong Kim Ark v. US, para 34.

"Nor can it be doubted that it is the inherent right of every independent nation to determine for itself, and according to its own constitution and laws, what classes of persons shall be entitled to its citizenship."
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

#174252 Oct 8, 2013
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!! The Constitution has jurisdiction of the US government and all branches, thereof.(see US Constitution)
You cannot read into the US Constitution something that it does not say. And it does not say that two US citizen parents are required to be president. In fact, there is not a word in the US Constitution that says either that the US-born children of foreigners or that US-born dual citizens are not eligible to become president. Not a word.

Under strict construction (remember that?) you cannot interpret the Constitution as saying something unless it actually does says it-----and it does NOT say that two citizen parents are required or that a dual citizen is barred from becoming president. It does not say either of those things.

Under libertarian principles neither a law nor the Constitution can take away a right or a privilege unless the Constitution specifically allows that thing to be taken away. And, the Constitution does not specifically take away the right or privilege of the US-born children of foreigners to become president, and it does not take away the right or privilege of the US-born dual citizens either. It does not take away either of those things. It does NOT say any such thing.

And yet slimy Dale wants gullible people to ignore good conservative legal principles such as strict construction and good conservative moral principles such as libertarianism. Why?

Why? Why, when there isn't a word in the Constitution that says that the US-born children of foreigners are not eligible to become president? Why? What is slimy Dale's motive? Why, violate strict construction AND libertarian principles? Why does he do it? Why throw away such principles based solely on hatred of Obama?

The Declaration of Independence says: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..." And there is nothing in either the Constitution or in ANY of the writings of the men who were in the Constitutional Convention, or such other American leaders at the time as John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. There NOTHING in any of their writings that says that the US-born children of foreigners are not as eligible as the US-born children of US citizens. Nothing. But slimy Dale would like to throw out that principle too.
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

#174253 Oct 8, 2013
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!! Sorry, aliens have never been "and subject to the jurisdiction, thereof". If they were they would be called citizens and the naturalization process wouldn't be necessary.
LAMO!!!!

Every person in the USA except for the families of foreign diplomats is subject to the jurisdiction of the USA.

You cannot read into the US Constitution something that it does not say. And it does not say that two US citizen parents are required to be president. In fact, there is not a word in the US Constitution that says either that the US-born children of foreigners or that US-born dual citizens are not eligible to become president. Not a word.

Under strict construction (remember that?) you cannot interpret the Constitution as saying something unless it actually does says it-----and it does NOT say that two citizen parents are required or that a dual citizen is barred from becoming president. It does not say either of those things.

Under libertarian principles neither a law nor the Constitution can take away a right or a privilege unless the Constitution specifically allows that thing to be taken away. And, the Constitution does not specifically take away the right or privilege of the US-born children of foreigners to become president, and it does not take away the right or privilege of the US-born dual citizens either. It does not take away either of those things. It does NOT say any such thing.

And yet slimy Dale wants gullible people to ignore good conservative legal principles such as strict construction and good conservative moral principles such as libertarianism. Why?

Why? Why, when there isn't a word in the Constitution that says that the US-born children of foreigners are not eligible to become president? Why? What is slimy Dale's motive? Why, violate strict construction AND libertarian principles? Why does he do it? Why throw away such principles based solely on hatred of Obama?

The Declaration of Independence says: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..." And there is nothing in either the Constitution or in ANY of the writings of the men who were in the Constitutional Convention, or such other American leaders at the time as John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. There NOTHING in any of their writings that says that the US-born children of foreigners are not as eligible as the US-born children of US citizens. Nothing. But slimy Dale would like to throw out that principle too.
Dale

Wichita, KS

#174254 Oct 8, 2013
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
LMAO!! "All persons born in the US not subject to any foreign powers are citizens (Civil Rights Act 1866)simply means they are "subject to the jurisdiction, thereof".

"Nor can it be doubted that it is the inherent right of every independent nation to determine for itself, and according to its own constitution and laws, what classes of persons shall be entitled to its citizenship." (WKR v. US 1898)

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) 3 min woodtick57 1,223,278
News Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 13 min Cold Front 69,763
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 1 hr zion 52,975
News 1 dead 4 injured in separate shootings across C... 2 hr Tourista 2
News Police: Missing woman with brain injury may be ... 3 hr reality is a crutch 1
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 3 hr PEllen 99,410
Amy May 3-15 3 hr PEllen 1
More from around the web

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]