BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit ...

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

There are 239386 comments on the Chicago Tribune story from Jan 8, 2009, titled BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting Obama's citizen.... In it, Chicago Tribune reports that:

The U.S. Supreme Court will consider Friday whether to take up a lawsuit challenging President-elect Barack Obama 's U.S. citizenship, a continuation of a New Jersey case embraced by some opponents of Obama's ...

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Chicago Tribune.

Dale

United States

#174363 Oct 9, 2013
Atticus Tiberius Finch wrote:
<quoted text>
At the time of the drafting of the 14th Amendment, there were those who were born in the United States who were not citizens of the United States.
There were called Indians.
Read Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884)
LMAO!!! That is correct, they were citizens/members of another nation/country, not subject to the jurisdiction, thereof. Obama wasn't "subject to the jurisdiction, thereof", since he was born a citizen of his father's country.

"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." (Ark v. US, para 34)
Dale

United States

#174364 Oct 9, 2013
Atticus Tiberius Finch wrote:
<quoted text>
Every person in the United States except Ambassadors are not subject to a foreign power.
United States doesn't share its jurisdiction of people be they citizens or aliens with a foreign nation.
"[T]he legal status of foreign nationals in the United States is determined solely by our domestic law — foreign law confers no privilege in this country that our courts are bound to recognize. Vanity Fair Mills v. T. Eaton Co., 234 F. 2d 633, 638-639 (2nd Cir. 1956)
“Without entering upon this subject (which properly belongs to a general treatise upon public law), it may be truly said that no nation is bound to respect the laws of another nation made in regard to the subjects of the latter which are nonresidents. The obligatory force of such laws of any nation cannot extend beyond its own territories.••• Whatever may be the intrinsic or obligatory force of such laws upon such persons, if they should return to their native country, they can have none in other nations wherein they reside. Such laws may give rise to personal relations between the sovereign and subjects, to be enforced in his own domains; but they do not rightfully extend to other nations.” Rundell v. La Campagnie Generale Transatlantique, 100 Fed. 655, 660 (7th Cir. 1900)(quoting Justice Story, Commentaries of the Conflict of Laws (section 22)(1834)
In other words, the United States doesn't recognized the laws of foreign nations of its citzens or subjects while they reside in the United States.
If a nation can't exercise its laws over its citizens residing in a foreign nation then the citizens of that nation ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE LAWS OF THEIR NATION.
That is why Mexican police can't enter Texas to arrest Mexican nationals living in Texas.
That is why Nazi Germany couldn't enforced its laws aganst German nationals living in New Jersey in the 1930s.
LMAO!!! Ever hear of an extradition treaty?
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#174365 Oct 9, 2013
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!! That is correct, they were citizens/members of another nation/country, not subject to the jurisdiction, thereof. Obama wasn't "subject to the jurisdiction, thereof", since he was born a citizen of his father's country.
"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." (Ark v. US, para 34)
There really is no escaping that handy little phrase, "and not subject to ANY foreign power". That one really wads up their panties! LMAO!
Dale

United States

#174366 Oct 9, 2013
Atticus Tiberius Finch wrote:
<quoted text>
Every person in the United States except Ambassadors are not subject to a foreign power.
United States doesn't share its jurisdiction of people be they citizens or aliens with a foreign nation.
"[T]he legal status of foreign nationals in the United States is determined solely by our domestic law — foreign law confers no privilege in this country that our courts are bound to recognize. Vanity Fair Mills v. T. Eaton Co., 234 F. 2d 633, 638-639 (2nd Cir. 1956)
“Without entering upon this subject (which properly belongs to a general treatise upon public law), it may be truly said that no nation is bound to respect the laws of another nation made in regard to the subjects of the latter which are nonresidents. The obligatory force of such laws of any nation cannot extend beyond its own territories.••• Whatever may be the intrinsic or obligatory force of such laws upon such persons, if they should return to their native country, they can have none in other nations wherein they reside. Such laws may give rise to personal relations between the sovereign and subjects, to be enforced in his own domains; but they do not rightfully extend to other nations.” Rundell v. La Campagnie Generale Transatlantique, 100 Fed. 655, 660 (7th Cir. 1900)(quoting Justice Story, Commentaries of the Conflict of Laws (section 22)(1834)
In other words, the United States doesn't recognized the laws of foreign nations of its citzens or subjects while they reside in the United States.
If a nation can't exercise its laws over its citizens residing in a foreign nation then the citizens of that nation ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE LAWS OF THEIR NATION.
That is why Mexican police can't enter Texas to arrest Mexican nationals living in Texas.
That is why Nazi Germany couldn't enforced its laws aganst German nationals living in New Jersey in the 1930s.
LMAO!!! 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.
The US can't prevent a nation from giving citizenship to a child born in the US of an alien father, this is their right of being an independent nation, nor can the US strip a foreign citizenship, unless requested by the holder.
Learn to Read

United States

#174367 Oct 9, 2013
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!! How's that Utopian belief working for you?!!! Hahahaha!!!
This from the moron who fantasizes that the 14th amendment changed the meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction"

Talk about no grasp on reality
Dale

United States

#174368 Oct 9, 2013
Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
There really is no escaping that handy little phrase, "and not subject to ANY foreign power". That one really wads up their panties! LMAO!
They have tried everything, but violations of the Constitution just don't get it.
Democracynow org

Edison, NJ

#174369 Oct 9, 2013
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
Right, therefore not the Anti-Christ, but the Anti Virgin Mary.
Good one. lol

Welcome Back!
Dale

United States

#174370 Oct 9, 2013
Ellen1 wrote:
<quoted text>
That is YOUR nutty idea, and your nutty idea only. It certainly was not the view of the writers of the 14th Amendment, for example Bingham:
“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.
LMAO!!! Everyone knows, liberals are the number one ingrediant of a fruitcake!!
Bingham:
[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen...[6]
AKR v. US:
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

United States

#174371 Oct 9, 2013
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>Tsk Tsk, the Supreme Court cannot compare to Dale who hears voices from on high.
LMAO!!! I hear that voice again!!!

"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."

“ad maiora nati sumus ”

Since: Sep 09

Justice Scalia is an Oxymoron

#174372 Oct 9, 2013
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!! That is correct, they were citizens/members of another nation/country, not subject to the jurisdiction, thereof. Obama wasn't "subject to the jurisdiction, thereof", since he was born a citizen of his father's country.
"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." (Ark v. US, para 34)
You would be only correct in two instance.

FIrst instance, if Obama were born in the 1800s to an Indian tribe that was recognized by the United States government as being ALIEN NATION within the United States.

Second instance, if Obama were born in Hawaii while Hawaii was occupied by foreign troops and his father was a foreign soldier who had no allegiance to the United States.

Since Obama wasn't an Indian in the 1800s and his father wasn't a foreign soldier occupying Hawaii then Obama is a natural born citizen.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#174373 Oct 9, 2013
If a white-Hispanic shoots a black man in self defence, he is a racist. But if some blacks murder a white guy, while shouting racial slurs, that is not a race murder?!?

Did 5 Blacks Kill Returning Combat Vet Because He Was White?

The incidents of violence committed by blacks is growing out of control It seems that ever since the shooting of Trayvon Martin, blacks have declared open season on whites across the country and our black leaders (Obama and Holder) are saying and doing nothing to stop it. Their silence seems to be an endorsement and encouragement for the violence to continue.
In one of the latest instances, a serviceman, Tevin A. Geike, who recently returned home from combat and awaiting his discharge from the military was stabbed to death by a group of blacks because he was white.
According to witnesses, several servicemen were walking to their hotel early Sunday morning near their base in Seattle. A car with five black men drove by and began yelling out racial slurs against the white servicemen. According to Lt. Chris Lawler of the Lakewood Police Department:
“‘One of the soldiers yelled back something about the suspects treating combat soldiers with disrespect.”
“The vehicle turned around, and five black males got out of the car and confronted the soldiers, according to reports. As the verbal confrontation ensued, the driver of the vehicle realized the men were actually combat veterans and called his friends off.”

“While the men headed back to their vehicle, one of the suspects appeared to have bumped into the victim, witnesses say.”
“The soldiers saw their friend fall to the ground as the car sped away. The victim was bleeding profusely from a stab wound and died at the scene.”

Read more: http://godfatherpolitics.com/12816/5-blacks-k...
Read more at http://godfatherpolitics.com/12816/5-blacks-k...
Ellen1

Dedham, MA

#174374 Oct 9, 2013
Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
There really is no escaping that handy little phrase, "and not subject to ANY foreign power". That one really wads up their panties! LMAO!
Under US law and the Constitution NO child born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats is subject to ANY foreign power.

“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.

You cannot read into the Constitution something that it does not say, and it does not say that the US-born children of foreigners OR dual citizens are not eligible to become president. It does not say it.

“ad maiora nati sumus ”

Since: Sep 09

Justice Scalia is an Oxymoron

#174375 Oct 9, 2013
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!! Ever hear of an extradition treaty?
Extradition treaty doesn't allow a foreign nation's troops or police to come in the United States to arrest or detain its subjects or citizens in the United States.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#174376 Oct 9, 2013
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
And could Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Warren Buffett, etc, get rich without employees?
Public Integrity is a communist because he wants fairness and equality, not charity? Stalin was a communist. How would you rate him as to fairness and equality?
Public Integrity org wrote:
<quoted text>
I am still a registered Republican.
LOL
I am an authentic liberal/progressive who puts the needs of average Americans first and the wealthiest 0.1% last.
They already own most of Congress and do not need any help from me.
But would those employees have jobs without Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, etc.
What if an Army only had generals? Privates? Infantrymen? Cooks? Medics? Etc.? BUT with the proper mix of leaders, followers, infantrymen, cooks, medics, truck drivers, logisticans, etc. you do have an ARMY!
Ellen1

Dedham, MA

#174377 Oct 9, 2013
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!! Everyone knows, liberals are the number one ingrediant of a fruitcake!!
Bingham:
[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen...[6]
AKR v. US:
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.
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.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#174378 Oct 9, 2013
How is this government shut down different than the one in 1995?
1. Bill Clinton negotiated!
2. There was no Fox News to tell both sides of the events.
3. There was no Conservative talk radio, ditto!
4. There was no real internet.

Have you noticed the Dems seem to be getting worried? WHY??? The truth will set you free.
Frank

Spokane, WA

#174379 Oct 9, 2013
Atticus Tiberius Finch wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong.
At no time was Obama under "British jurisdiction". Dual citizenship at birth does not equate dual allegiance. All children of alien parents born in the United States have dual citizenship: United States citizenship and citizenship of his or her parents.
Courts have long recognized that foreign nations have no jurisdiction over its citizens or subjects in the United States. "[T]he legal status of foreign nationals in the United States is determined solely by our domestic law — foreign law confers no privilege in this country that our courts are bound to recognize." Vanity Fair Mills v. T. Eaton Co., 234 F. 2d 633, 638-639 (2nd Cir. 1956). See also Rundell v. La Campagnie Generale Transatlantique, 100 Fed. 655, 660 (7th Cir. 1900)("Such laws may give rise to personal relations between the sovereign and subjects, to be enforced in his own domains; but they do not rightfully extend to other nations.”)
Moreover, United States' jurisdiction over Obama while he was residing in the United States is complete and does not share its jurisdiction with "British jurisdiction" since "British jurisdiction" does not extend beyond British territorial limits. "`no sovereignty can extend its process beyond its own territorial limits, to subject other persons or property to its judicial decisions. Every exertion of authority beyond these limits is a mere nullity, and incapable of binding such persons or property in other tribunals;'" Grover & Baker Sewing Machine Co. v. Radcliffe 137 U.S. 287,296 (1890)
As such, United States jurisdiction over Obama was exclusive and absolute at the time of his birth. "The jurisdiction of the nation within its own territory is necessarily exclusive and absolute." Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon, 11 U.S. 116 , 136 (1812)
Barack Obama's father was never a citizen of The United States,he never immigrated to the United States. I have attended immigration briefings,the point that the immigration officials always made was that if someone legally immigrated to the United States and became United States citizens then had children, those children would be eligible to run for President of the United States. Nothing has changed in history,The Constitution or our immigration laws that would make Obama eligible.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#174380 Oct 9, 2013
What, no polar bear shortage? But you said there was?!? The fact is that the polar bear population has been growing in all areas except for Russia where there is a poach problem! But will they admit that? NO!!!

Forget Polar Bears — Warming Will Hit the Tropics First
By Becky Oskin, Staff Writer

Amber-eyed jaguars could soon boot out polar bears as king of adorable, furry species nearing extinction because of global warming.

In the next 10 years, the tropics will suffer "unprecedented" climate change effects, long before the Arctic and its polar bears see big shifts, according to an analysis of global warming trends published today (Oct. 9) in the journal Nature.

But the study goes far beyond simply highlighting the plight of tropical plants and animals. For the first time, researchers have pinpointed individual tipping points, the years when each of the world's capitals will see climate extremes become the norm. New York City is fated to flip over to hotter temperatures in 2047, give or take five years, if carbon dioxide emissions continue at current levels, researchers say.

"The coldest year in the future will be hotter than the hottest year in the past [150 years]," said Camilo Mora, lead study author and a geographer at the University of Hawaii, Manoa.

http://news.yahoo.com/forget-polar-bears-warm...

“ad maiora nati sumus ”

Since: Sep 09

Justice Scalia is an Oxymoron

#174381 Oct 9, 2013
Dale wrote:
<quoted text>LMAO!!! Everyone knows, liberals are the number one ingrediant of a fruitcake!!
Bingham:
[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen...[6]
AKR v. US:
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.
Bingham's statement about " parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty " was a misstatement of the common law regarding citizenship in the United States.

The correct statement of the common law of citizenship in the United States as stated by Bingham's fellow Senators and Congressman is as follows:

"I understand that under naturalization laws children who are born here of parents who have not been naturalized are citizens. That is the law, as I understand it at the present time." Senator Trumbull, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 498 (January 30, 1866)

"There has been no time since the foundation of the government when an American Congress could by possibly have enacted such a law, or with propriety have made such a declaration. What is this declaration? All persons born in this country are citizens." Senator Morrill, Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess. 570 (February 1, 1866)

“They became such in virtue of national law, or rather natural law which recognizes persons born WITHIN THE JURISDICTION of every country as being subjects or citizens of that country. Such persons were, therefore, citizens of the United States as WERE BORN IN THE COUNTRY or were made by naturalization.” Senator Jacob Howard, Cong. Globe 39th Cong., 1st Sess, 2765 (1866).[emphasis added]

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#174382 Oct 9, 2013
Hummm, why were no polar bears spotted in Iceland from about 1993 until 2008? Maybe because there was not enough ice for them. They have been known to swim 62 miles (100 Km) in open ocean and it is 180 miles from Greenland to Iceland.
But since 2008 six polar bears have made it to Iceland (none reported this year)only to be shot dead as they are seen as a threat to humans and livestock. But how are they getting to Iceland? Maybe, just maybe, there is MORE ice to hitch a ride on.

First polar bear to swim to Iceland in 15 years is shot dead by police in front of sightseers
By DAILY MAIL REPORTER
Last updated at 5:06 PM on 04th June 2008

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10242...

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) 47 min VetnorsGate 1,508,473
{keep A word drop A word} (Oct '11) 7 hr They cannot kill ... 10,496
Obama has LEAK under sink. 7 hr TROY the Plumber 36
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 8 hr Raymond 63,546
News Scientists say they have proved climate change ... (Dec '08) 9 hr Patriot AKA Bozo 8,066
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 9 hr CrunchyBacon 105,055
This doesn't seem fair to me. 13 hr Publishers R Fasc... 9

Chicago Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Chicago Mortgages